Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.

NEW ORLEANS GAS LIGHT COMPANY v. DRAINAGE COMMISSION OF NEW ORLEANS (1905)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Seal of the Supreme Court of the United States
NEW ORLEANS GAS LIGHT COMPANY v. DRAINAGE COMMISSION OF NEW ORLEANS
Term: 1904
Important Dates
Argued: March 8, 1905
Decided: April 3, 1905
Outcome
Affirmed (includes modified)
Vote
9-0
Majority
David Josiah BrewerHenry Billings BrownWilliam Rufus DayMelville Weston FullerJohn Marshall HarlanOliver Wendell HolmesJoseph McKennaRufus Wheeler PeckhamEdward Douglass White

NEW ORLEANS GAS LIGHT COMPANY v. DRAINAGE COMMISSION OF NEW ORLEANS is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on April 3, 1905. The case was argued before the court on March 8, 1905.

In a 9-0 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the lower court. The case originated from the Louisiana State Trial Court.

For a full list of cases decided in the 1900s, click here. For a full list of cases decided by the Fuller Court, click here.

[1]

About the case

  • Subject matter: Economic Activity - State or local government regulation, especially of business (cf. federal pre-emption of state court jurisdiction, federal pre-emption of state legislation or regulation)
  • Petitioner: Electric or hydroelectric power utility, power cooperative, or gas and electric company
  • Petitioner state: Unknown
  • Respondent type: City, town, township, village, or borough government or governmental unit
  • Respondent state: Louisiana
  • Citation: 197 U.S. 453
  • How the court took jurisdiction: Writ of error
  • What type of decision was made: Opinion of the court (orally argued)
  • Who was the chief justice: Melville Weston Fuller
  • Who wrote the majority opinion: William Rufus Day

These data points were accessed from The Supreme Court Database, which also attempts to categorize the ideological direction of the court's ruling in each case. This case's ruling was categorized as liberal.

See also

External links

Footnotes