Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Southern Power Co. v. North Carolina Public Service Co.
S. Power Co. v. N.C. Pub. Serv. Co., 263 U.S. 508 (1924)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1924-01-07
- Topic
- general
*509 Me. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the Court. This writ must be dismissed. The petition therefor statéd that the cause involved a grave question of vital importance to the public, and alleged as special reason for its reexamination that the decree would deprive petitioner of property without due process of law and of freedom to contract, contrary to the Federal Constitution. The opinion below is reported in 282 Fed. 837.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Southern Power Co. v. North Carolina Public Service Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 31 opinions
Headnotes
- Civil Procedure — Certiorari Practice A petition for certiorari must make a clear, definite, and complete disclosure of the controversy involved, so that the Court may determine from the preliminary papers whether the case warrants review; this requirement is essential because the volume of petitions makes it impossible for the Court critically to examine the full record before ruling on each application.
- Civil Procedure — Certiorari — Scope of Review Where a petition for certiorari is not granted on the ground ultimately argued as the controverted question, and that ground presents primarily a question of fact—such as whether the evidence sufficed to establish an actual dedication of property to public use—the writ will not be entertained on that basis, even had the ground been sufficiently developed in the petition.
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This writ must be dismissed. The petition therefor statéd that the cause involved a grave question of vital importance to the public, and alleged as special reason for its reexamination that the decree would deprive petitioner of property without due process of law and of freedom to contract, contrary to the Federal Constitution. The opinion below is reported in 282 Fed. 837.
The argument developed that the controverted question. was whether the evidence sufficed to establish actual dedication of petitioner’s property to public use — primarily a question of fact. That is not the ground upon which we granted the petition and if sufficiently developed would not have moved us thereto.
Heretofore we have pointed out the necessity for clear, definite and complete disclosures concerning the controversy when applying for certiorari. Furness, Withy & Co. v. Yang-Tsze Insurance Association, 242 U. S. 430; Layne & Bowler Corporation v. Western Well Works, 261 U. S. 387. The opinion first cited states that during the 1915 term one hundred fifty-four petitions were presented and suggests the probability of a largely increased number. During the last term (1922) petitions were filed in four hundred and twenty causes.
Obviously it is impossible for us critically to examine so many records before ruling upon applications and we must rely very largely upon preliminary papers. Unless the requirements specified in Furness, Withy & Co. v. Yang-Tsze Insurance Association are observed we cannot hope properly to dispose of an increasing docket.
Dismissed.