City of Walla Walla v. Walla Walla Water Co’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

108 federal appellate · 75 district · 289 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 730 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is sufficient for tbe purpose of this case to say that this court has too often decided, for the rule to be now questioned, that the grant of a right to supply gas or water to a municipality and its inhabitants through pipes and mains laid in the streets, upon condition of the performance of its service by the grantee, is the grant of a franchise vested in the state in consideration of the performance of a public service, and, after performance by the grantee, is a contract protected by the constitution of the United States against state legislation to impair it.” 172 U. S. 9 , 19 Sup. Ct. 81 , 43 L. Ed. 341 .”

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Iron Mountain R. Co. of Memphis v. City of Memphis · Mercantile Trust & Deposit Co. of Baltimore v. Collins Park & B. R.

2. ““Taking sections 7 and 8 together, they amount simply to this: that, if the city should desire to establish waterworks of its own, it should do so by condemning the_ property of the company, and making such changes in its plant, or such additions thereto, as it might deem desirable for the better supply of its inhabitants; but that it would not enter into a direct competition with the company during the life of the contract. As such competition would be almost necessarily ruinous to the company,' it was little more than an agreement that the city would carry out the contract in good faith. An agreement of this kind was a natural incident to the main purpose of the contract, to the power given to the city by its charter to provide a sufficient supply of water, and to grant the right to use the streets of the city for the purpose of laying water pipes to any person or association of persons for a time not exceeding twenty-five years. In establishing a system of waterworks the company would necessarily incur a large expense in the construction of the power house and the laying of its pipes through the streets, and, as the life of the contract was limited to twenty-five years, it would naturally desire to protect itself from competition as far as possible, and would have a right to expect at least the city would not itself enter into such competition. It is not to be supposed that the company would have entered into this large undertaking in view of the possibility that, in one o”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Southwest Missouri Light Co. v. City of Joplin · Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Mayor of Meridian

3. ““We think the weight of authority, as well as of reason, favors the more liberal construction, that a municipal corporation may contract for a supply of water or gas, or a like necessary, and may stipulate for the payment of an annual rental for the gas or water furnished each year, notwithstanding the aggregate of its rentals. during the life of the contract may exceed the amount of the indebtedness limited by the charter. There is a distinction between a debt and a contract for a future indebtedness to be incurred, provided the contracting party perform the agreement out of which the debt may arise. There is also a distinction between the latter case and one where an absolute debt is created at once, as by the issue of railway bonds, or for the erection of a public improvement, though such debt be payable in the future by installments. In the one case the indebtedness is not created until the consideration has been furnished; in the other, the debt is created at once, the time of payment being only postponed.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. City of Phoenix v. PHOENIX CIVIC AUD. & CON. CENT. · State Ex Rel. La Follette v. Reuter