Ottinger v. Consolidated Gas Co. of NY
Court upholds lower court and blocks New York law limiting gas prices to $1 per thousand as confiscatory, protecting the gas company from enforced rate cuts that would deny a fair return.
Real-world impact
- Blocks New York from enforcing the $1-per-thousand gas rate as confiscatory.
- Protects the gas company from enforced rate cuts that deny a fair return.
- Does not decide contract or safety claims; those issues remain unresolved.
Topics
Summary
Background
A private gas company accepted a prior state commission order setting a rate up to $1.15 per thousand cubic feet for lower-quality gas and then challenged a new State law. The New York Legislature passed a law on June 2, 1923, c. 899, that capped gas at $1 per thousand for higher-quality gas in New York City. The company sued state officials, arguing the law would be confiscatory, interfere with its contract rights, and be impossible to meet safely.
Reasoning
A master took extensive evidence about the company’s property, costs, and the practical ability to supply the higher-quality gas. He concluded the $1 rate would not produce a fair return — noting it would not yield a six percent return — and therefore would take property without compensation. The District Court agreed and enjoined enforcement. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment but narrowed it: the law is invalid because enforcement would be confiscatory under the Constitution’s protection against taking property without a fair return. The Court said it was unnecessary to decide the other objections.
Real world impact
The ruling prevents New York from enforcing the $1-per-thousand rate to the extent that doing so would confiscate the company’s property by denying a fair return. It leaves other claims — like whether a contract was impaired or whether the higher-quality gas can be supplied safely — undecided, so further proceedings could address those matters.
Dissents or concurrances
A Justice recorded agreement with the result, concurring only in the outcome rather than writing a separate full opinion, so no broad disagreement changed the decision.
Questions, answered
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents). Try:
- “What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?”
- “How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?”
- “What are the practical implications of this ruling?”