Summary

Portrait of Edward Terry Sanford Edward Terry Sanford Prendergast v. New York Telephone Company…

The District Court, after consideration and analysis of the evidence, concluded that the value of the Company's property upon which it was entitled a return could not be reduced much below $300,000,000, and that the rates prescribed could not possibly yield a fair return upon such valuation. It is well settled that the granting of a temporary injunction, pending final hearing, is within the sound discretion of the trial court
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Edward Terry Sanford Edward Terry Sanford Prendergast v. New York Telephone Company…

The Company on March 29 filed its bill in the District Court against the Commission, its counsel and the Attorney General of the State, for the purpose of enjoining the enforcement of these orders, upon the ground that they were confiscatory and in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. An application for an interlocutory injunction was heard by three judges; and the court as thus constituted on June 12 granted an interlocutory order enjoining the defendants from enforcing the orders of the Commission pending the final hearing and until the further order of the court
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Edward Terry Sanford Edward Terry Sanford Prendergast v. New York Telephone Company…

While under the Public Service Commissions Law any person interested in an order of the Commission has the right to apply for a rehearing, the Commission is not required to grant such rehearing unless in its judgment sufficient reason therefor appear; the application for the rehearing does not excuse compliance with the order or its enforcement except as the Commission may direct
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature