DUKE POWER CO. ET AL.
v.
GREENWOOD COUNTY ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Duke Power Company challenged South Carolina's county's construction of a local electric power plant funded by a federal loan and grant under the National Industrial Recovery Act, arguing it violated the company's legal rights through unfair competition. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's dismissal, holding that the company lacked standing to sue because even if the federal administrator exceeded his statutory authority, the county's proposed competition did not violate any legal right of the power company.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Sutherland delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the same question as that just decided in Nos. 84 and 85, ante, p. 464. The respondents are essentially the same, with the addition of Greenwood County, in the State of South Carolina, and the members of the finance board of the county. The suit was brought to enjoin the construction and operation of a local electric power plant in the county, and the making of a loan and grant by the federal administrator to the county, for that purpose, under the provisions of Title II of the National Industrial Recovery Act, set forth, so far as material, in Nos. 84-85, supra.
The case was here on a previous writ, upon consideration of which this court, because of substantial irregularities in practice, reversed the judgment of the court below with directions to vacate the decrees entered by the district court, and remand the cause to that court with directions to permit the parties to amend their pleadings in the light of existing facts, and retry the cause upon the issues then presented. We expressed no opinion upon the merits or the relevancy or effect of the evidence. 299 U. S. 259. Accordingly, the case was remanded to the district court, and reheard. The district court, after making findings of fact and conclusions of law, dismissed the bill. The court below, upon appeal, considered the case fully, and delivered an exhaustive opinion. It held (1) that the statute, under which the administrator proposed to act, was constitutional; (2) that he acted within the power granted him by the statute; and (3) that in any event no legal right of plaintiffs was violated by what had been done. 91 F. (2d) 665; see also preceding decision, 81 F. (2d) 986.
Upon the question of petitioners’ standing to maintain the suit, the lower court held, in substance, that the competition proposed by the county was lawful and that even though the administrator were without authority to make the proposed loan and grant, no legal right of petitioners was thereby invaded. The opinion upon this branch of the case is in harmony with the views we have just expressed in Nos. 84 and 85; and it follows that the decree must be, and it is,
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Black concurs in the result.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (25 total)
-
THE State OF Fla. ON THE Relation OF Millard F. Caldwell v. LEE, 157 Fla. 773 (Fla. 1946)…the Budget Commission. Appropriations have frequently been made contingent on an audit or the findings of an administrative board and have been upheld. Carlton v. Matthews, supra; Duke Power Company v. Greenwood County, 91 Fed. (2) 665, affirmed in 82 L. Ed. 381 and 16 C. J. S. 378. Both Federal and State governments have frequently indulged such delegations of power, and many millions of dollars have been allocated and used for public projects in the manner authorized here. It is next contended that, even…
-
Scripps-Howard Radio, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 316 U.S. 4 (U.S. 1942)…interest has been unlawfully invaded, there is merely damnum, absque injuria and no cause of action on the merits. Alabama Power Co. v. Ickes, supra; Greenwood County v. Duke Power Co., 81 F. 2d 986, 999. And see Duke Power Co. v. Greenwood County, 302 U. S. 485. Congress could have said that the holder of a radio license has an individual substantive right to be free of competition resulting from the issuance of another license and causing injury. In that event, unlike the situation in Muskrat v. United St…
-
Tenn. Elec. Power Co. v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 306 U.S. 118 (U.S. 1939)…263 U. S. 125. Railroad Co. v. Ellerman, 105 U. S. 166, 173; Alabama Power Co. v. Ickes, 302 U. S. 464, 479-483, and cases cited; Greenwood County v. Duke Power Co., 81 F. 2d 986, 997; Duke Power Co. v. Greenwood County, 91 F. 2d 665, 676; affirmed 302 U. S. 485. In Mississippi there is no State Commission, but municipalities are given the authority to regulate utilities within their territorial limits. Mississippi Code (1930) §§ 2400-1, 2414. Alabama Code (1928) § 9795; Carroll’s Kentucky Statutes (1936)…
Previewing 3 of 25 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Duke Power Co. v. Greenwood Cnty., 299 U.S. 259 (U.S. 1936)
- Duke Power Co. v. Greenwood Cnty., 91 F.2d 665 (4th Cir. 1937)
- Greenwood Cnty. v. Duke Power Co., 81 F.2d 986 (4th Cir. 1936)