Critzer v. United States

How later courts describe this case

• stating that “[t]he United States Supreme Court and this court have acknowledged that, under California law, the California Supreme Court’s denial of writs of review of rate decisions constitutes a denial on the merits.”
• affirming the ongoing vitality of Napa Valley Elec. Co. v. Railroad Comm'n, 251 U.S. 366, 40 S.Ct. 174, 64 L.Ed. 310 (1920)
• reaffirming the continuing vitality of Napa Valley Electric Co. v. Railroad Comm’n, 251 U.S. 366, 40 S.Ct. 174, 64 L.Ed. 310 (1920)
• “The statute does not comprehend a mere tabulation of aggravating versus mitigating circumstances to arrive at a net sum. It requires a weighing of those circumstances.”
• judgment invalidating bank fund transfer systems recognized as potentially disruptive of private investment and the public interest; judgment stayed for over eight months to permit congressional response
• income from motel/restaurant/gift shop on possessory holding similar to an allotment is taxable, at least in part, because derived primarily from personal investment and services rather than from the land itself
• defendant stated that he had killed before and it would not bother him to kill again
• defendant raped 71-year-old woman, struck her several times in head and body with an ax, shoved ax handle into her rectum, drove a nail into her wrist, and set her on fire while still alive