Opinion · California Supreme Court Opinions

SANTA MONICA v. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 179 Cal. 467 (1918)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA (a Mun. Corporation), et al., Petitioners, v.RAILROAD Comm’n OF THE STATE OF Cal. et al., Respondents.CITY OF PASADENA (a Mun. Corporation), et al., Petitioners, v.RAILROAD Comm’n OF THE STATE OF Cal. et al., Respondents., 177 P. 989 (Cal. 1918)

Type
Opinion
Court
California Supreme Court Opinions
Jurisdiction
California
Date
1918-12-27
Topic
general

SANTA MONICA v. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 179 Cal. 467 (1918) 177 P. 989 CITY OF SANTA MONICA (a Municipal Corporation), et al., Petitioners, v.RAILROAD COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al., Respondents.CITY OF PASADENA (a Municipal Corporation), et al., Petitioners, v.RAILROAD COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al., Respondents. L. A. No. 5974.L.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed SANTA MONICA v. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 179 Cal. 467 (1918). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

SANTA MONICA v. RAILROAD COMMISSION,179 Cal. 467(1918)
177 P. 989
CITY OF SANTA MONICA (a Municipal Corporation), et al., Petitioners, v.
RAILROAD COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al., Respondents.
CITY OF PASADENA (a Municipal Corporation), et al., Petitioners, v.
RAILROAD COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al., Respondents.
L. A. No. 5974.
L. A. No. 5975.
Supreme Court of California.
In Bank.
December 27, 1918.
APPLICATIONS for a Writ of Review originally made to the Supreme Court to annul certain orders of the Railroad Commission. Applications denied.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Victor R. Lucas, for Petitioner City of Santa Monica.

Rush M. Blodget, for Petitioner City of Venice.

John Munger and William Hazlett, for Petitioner City of Pasadena.
Alfred Barstow, for Petitioner City of Alhambra.
Page 468
THE COURT.
By these proceedings it is sought to review certain orders of the Railroad Commission raising certain rates or charges for the transportation of passengers by the Pacific Electric Railway Company. Section 20 of article XII of the constitution provides that in such matters "the decision of the said commission . . . shall not be subject to review by any court except upon the question whether such decision of the commission will result in confiscation of property."

We are satisfied that the petitions filed herein do not allege facts showing any "confiscation of property" within the meaning of this constitutional provision.

The applications are denied.