Van Dyke v. Geary
Citations
- 244 U.S. 39
- 37 S. Ct. 483
- 61 L. Ed. 973
- 1917 U.S. LEXIS 1604
Syllabus
<p>In a ease governed by Judicial Code, § 266, where the jurisdiction of the District Court is invoked upon constitutional questions, this court, upon appeal from an order denying preliminary injunction, has jurisdiction to review the whole case. Louisville & Nashville B. B. Co. v. Garrett, 231U. S. 298.</p> <p>Extension of the power of the Corporation Commission to the regulation of water systems belonging to individuals, as provided in the Public Service Corporation Act of Arizona (Rev. Stats., 1913, Title 9, c. XI), is permitted by the Constitution of Arizona, Art. XV.</p> <p>In the absence of an authoritative decision of the Supreme Court of the-State to the contrary, a contemporaneous construction of the state constitution by an act of the legislature which is reasonable in itself and designed to accomplish the obvious purpose of the constitutional provision in question should be followed by this court.</p> <p>Art. IV,, pt. 2, § 13, of the Arizona Constitution requiring that acts of the legislature shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith, which subject shall be expressed in the title, is sufficiently complied with by the Arizona Public Service Corporation Act, swpra, although that act applies to individuals as well as corporations, while its title refers' to corporations and makes no mention of -individuals.</p> <p>One who uses his property in supplying a large community with water thereby clothes .such property with a public interest and subjects the business to public regulation.</p> <p>Where it is-conceded that the purpose of a water system is to supply water to the residents-' and inhabitants of a particular townsite, though not to outsiders or the public generally, the mere fact that the lots of the townsite were originally purchased from the owner of the water system with the oral understanding that water could be secured from that system for use on the lots has no tendency to support the claim that the system furnishes wate
Judges: Brandeis, McReynolds
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
33 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- St. Joseph Stock Yards Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1936-04-27· cited 469×
- State ex rel. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Service Commission of MissouriSupreme Court· 1923-05-21· cited 373×
- Chas. Wolff Packing Co. v. Court of Industrial RelationsSupreme Court· 1923-06-11· cited 306×
- Thompson v. Consolidated Gas Utilities Corp.Supreme Court· 1937-02-01· cited 231×
- Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. JacobsenSupreme Court· 1960-03-07· cited 196×
- Selective Life Insurance v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United StatesArizona Supreme Court· 1967-01-19· cited 51×
- Black & White Taxicab Co. v. Standard Oil Co.Arizona Supreme Court· 1923-08-28· cited 41×
- State ex rel. M. O. Danciger & Co. v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of Missouri· 1918-07-16· cited 38×
- In Re MillerArizona Supreme Court· 1926-02-27· cited 31×
- Natural Gas Service Co. v. Serv-Yu Cooperative, Inc.Arizona Supreme Court· 1950-05-29· cited 29×
- State v. DaveyArizona Supreme Court· 1925-01-24· cited 25×
- Sherlock v. GreavesMontana Supreme Court· 1938-02-04· cited 24×
- Menderson v. City of PhoenixArizona Supreme Court· 1938-02-16· cited 22×
- Williams v. Pipe Trades Industry Program of ArizonaArizona Supreme Court· 1966-01-13· cited 21×
- Idaho Power Co. v. ThompsonD. Idaho· 1927-04-28· cited 21×
- SW Tel. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm.Supreme Court· 1923-05-21· cited 19×
- Garvey v. TrewArizona Supreme Court· 1946-06-28· cited 18×
- Hancock v. StateArizona Supreme Court· 1927-03-07· cited 18×
- Howe v. JacksonUtah Supreme Court· 1966-12-14· cited 17×
- In Re LewkowitzArizona Supreme Court· 1950-01-16· cited 14×
Cites
4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.