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

Annotate this Case

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

Syllabus

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

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. 215.

Page 260 U. S. 214

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.