BONILLA

v.

NEW YORK

Citator

Cited By

• Pa. R.R. Co. v. United States, 363 U.S. 202 (U.S. 1960)
  …overable, instead of the $7,237.87 which the Railroad claimed. The result is that the Railroad has been held bound by the Commission’s order although completely denied any judicial review of that order. We granted certiorari to consider this denial. 361 U. S. 922. The Railroad contends that it was error for the Court of Claims to refuse to stay its proceedings while the District Court reviewed the Commission’s order. The Solicitor General concedes here that this was error. We reach the same conclusion on th…
• United States v. Grand River Dam Auth., 363 U.S. 229 (U.S. 1960)
  …ower and energy at that site.6 The Court of Claims, while reserving the question as to the amount of compensation due, held by a divided vote that the United States was liable. — Ct. Cl. -, 175 F. Supp. 153. The case is here on a writ of certiorari. 361 U. S. 922. The Court of Claims recognized that if the Grand River were a navigable stream the United States would not be liable for depriving another entrepreneur of the opportunity to utilize the flow of the water to produce power. Our cases hold that such…
• United States v. Cooper, 277 F.2d 857 (5th Cir. 1960)
  …rinciple enunciated by the Supreme Court in the Twin City Power Co. case, supra, is to be expanded to cover non-navigable rivers and streams. This precise question appears to be before the Supreme Court in United States v. Grand River Dam Authority, 361 U.S. 922, 80 S.Ct. 292, 4 L.Ed.2d 239, certiorari granted on December 19, 1959, to the Court of Claims in the case of Grand River Dam Authority v. United States, 175 F.Supp. 153. We conclude that there was a complete failure of proof that there was a reason…