Des Moines Gas Company v. City of Des Moines’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 federal appellate · 83 district · 83 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 319 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““That there is an element of value in an assembled and established plant, doing business and earning money, over one not thus advanced, is self-evident. This element of value is a property right, and should be considered in determining the value of the property, upon-which the owner has a right to make a fair return when the same is private ly owned although dedicated to public use. Each ease must be controlled by its own circumstances, and the actual question here is: In view of the facts found, and the method of valuation used by him, did the master sufficiently include this element in determining the value of the property of this company for rate-making purposes'? “Included in going value as usually reckoned is the investment necessary to organizing and establishing the business which is not embraced in the value of its actual physical property. In this case, what may be called the inception cost of the enterprise entering into the establishing of a going concern had long since been incurred. The present company and its predecessors had long carried on business in the city of Des Moines, under other ordinances, and at higher rates than the ordinance in question established. For aught that appears in this record, these expenses may have been already compensated in rates charged and collected under former ordinances. As we have said, every presumption is in favor of the legitimate exercise of the rate-making power, and it is not to be presumed, without proof, that a company ”

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McCardle v. Indianapolis Water Co. · Spring Valley Water Co. v. City of San Francisco

2. “that element of value which inheres in the fixed and favorable consideration of customers, arising from an established and well-known and well-conducted business.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pensacola Greyhound Racing, Inc. v. Commissioner · Central Indiana Podiatry, P.C. v. Krueger

3. ““As to the item of $140,000, which, it is contended, should be added to the valuation, because of the fact that the master valued the property on the basis of the cost of reproduction new, less depreciation, and it would be necessary in such reproduction to take up and replace pavements on streets which were unpaved when the gas mains were laid, in order to replace the mains, we are of opinion that the court below correctly disposed of this question. These pavements were already in place. It may be conceded that they would require removal at the time when it became necessary to reproduce the plant in this respect. The master reached the conclusion that the life of the mains would not be enhanced by the necessity of removing the pavements, and that the company had no right of property in the pavements thus dealt with, and that there was neither .Justice nor equity in requiring the people who had been at the expense of paving the streets to pay an additional sum for gas because; the plant, when put in, would have to be at the expense of taking up and replacing the pavements in building the same. He held that such added value was wholly theoretical, when no benefit was derived therefrom. We find no error in this disposition of the question.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. City & County of San Francisco