Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Railroad Comm'n of Wis. v. Maxcy

R.R. Comm'n of Wis. v. Maxcy, 281 U.S. 82 (1930)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1930-03-12
Topic
general

Per Curiam. This is an appeal from the decree of the District Court, composed of three judges as required by the statute, enjoining the appellants from enforcing an order of the Railroad Commission of Wisconsin fixing rates to be charged by the receiver of the Washburn Water Works Company for supplying water. The District Court gave no opinion and, aside from the general recital in the decree that the court had considered the evidence submitted by the parties and that it appeared therefrom that the *83 valuation fixed by the Railroad Commission of the property of the Company for rate making purposes was not supported, the record contains no finding whatever by the District Court. This Court has repeatedly adverted to the importance in a suit of this character of a statement by the District Court of the grounds of its decision. Virginian Railway Company v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Railroad Comm'n of Wis. v. Maxcy. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
25 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Civil Procedure — Equity Decrees — Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Where a district court of three judges enjoins enforcement of a state commission's rate order on the ground that the commission's valuation of a public utility's property was unsupported by the evidence, the court should state the grounds of its decision, including appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law; a decree lacking such findings will be set aside and the cause remanded for the entry of findings and a decree thereon, with the restraining order continued pending further action below. 281 U.S. at 82
  2. Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Injunctions Against State Action — Statement of Grounds The importance of a district court's statement of the grounds of its decision is especially great where the decree enjoins the enforcement of a state law or the action of state officials thereunder, because the respect due to the State demands that the need for nullifying the action of its legislature or executive officials be persuasively shown. 281 U.S. at 82
  3. Civil Procedure — Review — Necessity of Findings by Trial Court In a suit of this character, the reviewing court should have the aid of appropriate findings by the district court of the facts which underlie its conclusions. 281 U.S. at 82
RAILROAD COMMISSIONv. MAXCY,281 U.S. 82(1930)
50 S.Ct. 228
RAILROAD COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN ET AL.v. MAXCY, RECEIVER.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT
OF WISCONSIN.
No. 301.
Argued March 6, 1930.
Decided March 12, 1930.
A decree of the District Court of three judges enjoining a state commission from enforcing an order fixing the rates of a public utility, upon the ground that the commission's valuation of the company's property was not supported by the evidence, without other statement of facts or reasons, isset asideand the cause remanded with directions to state findings of fact and conclusions of law and enter a decree thereon, the restraining order to be continued pending further action by the court below.
Mr. Suel O. Arnold, Assistant Attorney General of Wisconsin, with whomMr. John W. Reynolds, Attorney General, was on the brief, andMr. Adolph Kannebergfor appellants.Messrs. H.L. Butler, H.H. Thomas, B.H. Stebbins, R.M. StroudandR.M. Rieserwere on the brief for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from the decree of the District Court, composed of three judges as required by the statute, enjoining the appellants from enforcing an order of the Railroad Commission of Wisconsin fixing rates to be charged by the receiver of the Washburn Water Works Company for supplying water. The District Court gave no opinion and, aside from the general recital in the decree that the court had considered the evidence submitted by the parties and that it appeared therefrom that thePage 83valuation fixed by the Railroad Commission of the property of the Company for rate making purposes was not supported, the record contains no finding whatever by the District Court.

This Court has repeatedly adverted to the importance in a suit of this character of a statement by the District Court of the grounds of its decision.Virginian Railway Companyv.UnitedStates,272 U.S. 658,674,675;Lawrence, et al. v.St.Louis-San Francisco Railway Company,274 U.S. 588,596;Cleveland, etc. Ry. Co. v.United States,275 U.S. 404,414;Baltimore Ohio Railroad Companyv.United States,279 U.S. 781,787.

InLawrence, et al. v.St. Louis-San Francisco RailwayCompany, supra, the court said: "The importance of an opinion to litigants and to this Court in cases of this character was pointed out inVirginian Ry. Co. v.United States,272 U.S. 658,675. The importance is even greater where the decree enjoins the enforcement of a state law or the action of state officials thereunder. For then, the respect due to the State demands that the need for nullifying the action of its legislature or of its executive officials be persuasively shown."

In the present instance this Court should have the aid of appropriate findings by the District Court of the facts which underlie its conclusions.

The decree is set aside, and the cause is remanded to the District Court, specially constituted as provided by the statute, to state its findings of fact and conclusions of law and enter a decree thereon, the restraining order entered in this suit to be continued pending further action by the District Court.Decree set aside.Page 84