| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

In the case of Lincoln Gas and Electric Light Co. v. City of Lincoln in 1911, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over a contract between a city and utility company. The City of Lincoln, Nebraska had granted an exclusive franchise to the Lincoln Gas & Electric Light Company for gas lighting services within its jurisdiction for thirty years starting from 1885. However, after twenty years into this agreement, in 1905, the city passed an ordinance establishing rates that were lower than those agreed upon in their original contract with the company. The utility company sued on grounds that this action violated their contractual rights protected by due process under Fourteenth Amendment as it impaired obligations set out in their initial agreement with no compensation provided by law or regulation. However, ruling against them unanimously (9-0), Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., writing for majority stated that while contracts are generally protected from legislative interference under Constitution's Contract Clause; public utilities like gas companies have always been subject to governmental control when it comes to setting rates because they operate within public domain using public resources thus serving greater good overrides any private agreements made.
In the dissenting opinion for Lincoln Gas and Electric Light Co. v. City of Lincoln, 1911, it was argued that the city's decision to revoke a franchise agreement with the company was unconstitutional as it violated contractual obligations between both parties. The justice believed that once a contract is made, its terms should be upheld unless there are exceptional circumstances or public interest at stake which necessitate breaking such an agreement. In this case, they felt these conditions were not met and thus deemed the city's actions unlawful. They also expressed concern over potential implications on future business contracts if governments could arbitrarily break agreements without sufficient justification or compensation for damages incurred by affected parties.