Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Board Of Public Utility Commissioners v. Compania General De Tabacos De Filipinas

• 1918 • 249 U.S. 425 • White Court
In the case of Board of Public Utility Commissioners v. Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas, 1918, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant, a Spanish corporation operating in Philippines. The plaintiff had sought to regulate rates charged by the company for water supply services it provided in Manila and its suburbs. The court held that under Philippine law at that time (Act No. 2307), public utility regulation was limited only to American or Philippine entities and did not...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief White Court
Term: 1918
Docket: 253
249 U.S. 425
39 S. Ct. 332
63 L. Ed. 687
1919 U.S. LEXIS 2098

Board Of Public Utility Commissioners v. Compania General De Tabacos De Filipinas

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Board of Public Utility Commissioners v. Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas, 1918, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant, a Spanish corporation operating in Philippines. The plaintiff had sought to regulate rates charged by the company for water supply services it provided in Manila and its suburbs. The court held that under Philippine law at that time (Act No. 2307), public utility regulation was limited only to American or Philippine entities and did not extend to foreign corporations like Compania General De Tabacos De Filipinas unless they voluntarily submitted themselves to such jurisdiction which this company did not do so. Therefore, it could not be subjected to rate regulations imposed by local authorities.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Board of Public Utility Commissioners v. Compania General de Tabacos De Filipinas, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a law that allowed public utility rates in California to be set by a commission rather than market forces. He argued that this violated property rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment and constituted an unlawful taking without just compensation. Holmes contended that while government regulation is necessary, it should not infringe upon private property rights unless there is clear evidence of abuse or wrongdoing on part of the owner. He also expressed concern about potential corruption within regulatory commissions and believed they could easily become tools for political manipulation if left unchecked by judicial review.

Opinion written by Justice WVanDevanter
Decided: Apr 14, 1919
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms