US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ |™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for

CUMBERLAND TEL. & TEL. CO. V. LOUISIANA P.S.C., 260 U. S. 212 (1922)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 260 U. S. 212 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Cumberland Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Louisiana P.S.C., 260 U.S. 212 (1922)

Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Company v.

Louisiana Public Service Commission

No. 650

Argued on return to rule to show cause why supersedeas and injunction

should not be set aside and injunction dissolved, November 13, 1922

Decided November 20, 1922

260 U.S. 212


1. Upon appeal from an order merely refusing a preliminary injunction, under Jud.Code § 266, there is nothing upon which a supersedeas may operate. P. 260 U. S. 215.

2. Under Jud.Code, § 266, a single judge, in allowing an appeal from an order of the district court, constituted of three judges, denying a preliminary injunction is without power to grant a continuance of a temporary restraining order pending the appeal, and his order to that effect is void. P. 260 U. S. 216.

3. Equity Rule 74, which authorizes a justice or judge who took part in a decision granting or dissolving an injunction to suspend, modify, or restore the injunction pending appeal, does not apply to an appeal from an order refusing a preliminary injunction under Jud.Code § 266. P. 260 U. S. 217.

4. Where an interlocutory injunction has been refused in a case governed by Jud.Code § 266, an application for injunction pending appeal must be presented to the three judges, and, except in chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 260 U. S. 213

extraordinary circumstances, only after notice, and its allowance must be evidenced by their signatures or by announcement in open court with the three judges sitting, followed by a formal order tested as they direct. P. 260 U. S. 218.

5. The granting of such an injunction pending appeal is within the power of this Court, but application therefor will generally be referred to the Court of three judges who heard the case upon its merits and are familiar with the record. P. 260 U. S. 219.

Motion by the appellees to set aside an order of supersedeas and injunction granted by a district judge in connection with an appeal from an order of the district court, constituted of three judges, refusing an interlocutory injunction in appellant's suit to enjoin appellees, members of a state commission, from reducing its rates for telephone service. Application to this Court by appellant for an injunction maintaining the status quo. For the opinion of the court below denying the interlocutory injunction, see 283 F.2d 5. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 260 U. S. 214

ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for Search for

Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



Browse By ->> Volume


Browse By ->> Year


  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™