SAN DIEGO LAND & TOWN CO v. JASPER , 189 U.S. 439 (1903)
Argued March 10; Decided April 6
It is astonishing for the reader 120 years later to see the endless number of industrialization, Manifest Destiny cases as the nation moved rapidly into the new age and relentlessly West.
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:
This is a bill in equity brought in the circuit court against the board of supervisors of San Diego county and others for the purpose of having certain water rates which have been fixed by the board, declared void. It is alleged that the rates are so low as to amount to a taking of the plaintiff's property without due process of law. ...
Water rates are due process cases? God. There was a Tennessee case on water rates also, also decided by Holmes for the Court.
The circuit court decided that it did not appear that the rates would have that effect, and dismissed the bill, whereupon the plaintiff appealed to this court. ...
GOOD circuit court!
By a statute of California approved March 12, 1885, the board of supervisors of the counties are to fix the maximum water rates in cases like the present. They are authorized to proceed to a hearing upon a petition of twenty-five inhabitants who are taxpayers, and the rates when fixed are to be binding for not less than one year.
That's a due process case? A county board of supervisors decision for one year, after public hearing, establishing water rates. The courts, to say nothing of the SUPREME COURT, had to find a way to get rid of this bullshit. This is the second fucking water rates case to make it to the SUPREME COURT in 1903! I don't know how they got rid of them but they had to have, otherwise they'd be the Supreme Water Board.
The present bill made the petitioners parties, as well as the board, and alleged that they were not water takers...
They were not water takers. I see. So since I live by drinking my piss, but within a burgeoning metropolis of water takers I don't gotta pay. Get the hell outta town.
...the appellant contends that this bill should not be dismissed. It says that the only parties in interest have made default, and that the ordinance regulating the rates was procured by a fraud upon the supervisors, with the consequence, we suppose it to be intended, that the ordinance should be set aside on that ground without going further into the case.
Holmes, what the fuck was that sentence?
The petitioners did not complain of injury to any private interest of theirs. They had none. They appeared on behalf of the public only, and asked purely legislative action in the form of a general rule for the future to govern the public at large.
Sounds like a plan! Holmes, will you please get rid of this fucking case.
...the petitioners were merged in the public...
Yes.
The preliminary objections may be disposed of in a few words. ...
Holmes, you spent two fucking paragraphs of words before disposing, say flushing, these objections.
The charge that there was a fraud practised on the board hardly deserves mention, except for the undue warmth with which it has been pressed. There are no allegations in the bill sufficient to open the question. ... There is no indication of fraud or attempt at fraud.
Americans are a hot-tempered buncha motherfuckers!
The course adopted was adopted for reasons which appear on the face of the bill, the situation was made plain at the hearing before the supervisors, and we see no evidence that the parties did more than exercise their legal rights.
Coming now to the merits,
the first thing to be noticed is that the ordinance complained of took effect in November, 1897, and that after a year from that date the appellant was free to apply for a modification of the rates. It did not do so.
There is no allegation or suggestion that the board is corrupt, or that
it purposes and intends, without regard to evidence, to adhere to unjust
rates so as to destroy or impair the value of the appellant's works.
Under such circumstances the question arises whether this is much more
than a moot case, in view of the principles adverted to in Tennessee v.
Condon,
189 U.S. 64
, post, p. 579, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 579, or at least whether the appellant
should not be required to exhaust its other remedies before coming into
court. ...
Tennessee v. Condon, that was it!
In any event, the limited effect of the ordinance must be taken into account when we are called on to declare it 'such a flagrant attack upon the rights of property under the guise of regulations...
A "FLAGRANT ATTACK on the rights of property" lol.
This opinion in this horseshit case is 8-pages long! Holmes, did you write The Common Law for cases like this? So you could become the Supreme Water Rates Justice?
The scheme of the California statute is as follows:...
No, there's nothing following. You already decided the case, Holmes! We're not following the goddamned California statute.
Decree affirmed.
