Weems v. Bruce

City of Tulsa v. Soutwestern Bell Tel. Co.
5 F. Supp. 822 (N.D. Okla. 1934) Cited 6 times
In City of Tulsa v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 5 F. Supp. 822 (N.D. Okla. 1934), aff'd, 75 F.2d 343 (10th Cir. 1935), the court found that allowing telephone companies use of public rights-of-way was important because "[a] system of communication by telephone is of more than local interest.... The matter of providing for such a method of communication is clearly one of state-wide concern.
Since the charter provision itself provides no method of formula for separating local and interstate revenue for the purpose of collecting the percentage sought to be exacted, the entire provision is void, even as to revenue from purely local sources. Damselle Howard v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 207 U.S. 463, 28 S.Ct. 141, 52 L.Ed. 297; Weems v. Bruce (C.C.A. 10) 66 F.2d 304. And see Western Union T. Co. v. State of Kansas, 216 U.S. 1, 30 S.Ct. 190, 54 L.Ed. 355; Eureka Pipe Line Co. v. Hallanan, 257 U.S. 265, 42 S.Ct. 101, 66 L.Ed. 227.