Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Kentucky. [290 U.S. 177, 178] Mr. S. H. Brown, of Frankfort, Ky., for appellants.
Mr. Wm. Marshall Bullitt, of Louisville, Ky., for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
This suit was brought by respondent, Field Packing Company, against the state tax commission of Kentucky and its members to restrain the enforcement of that part of chapter 158 of the Acts of the 1932 Session of the General Assembly of Kentucky which imposed a tax of 10 cents per pound on all oleomargarine sold within the state. The statute was assailed as being in violation of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the state and of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The District Court, composed of three judges (28 U.S.C. 380 (28 USCA 380)) granted an interlocutory injunction and on final hearing entered a decree making the injunction permanent.
The District Court held that the statute, although in the form of a taxing law, was in reality a prohibition of the sale of oleomargarine in Kentucky and hence was invalid under the state constitution. The question presented under the Federal Constitution was not decided. Siler v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 213 U.S. 175, 191 , 29 S.Ct. 451; Hurn v. Oursler, 289 U.S. 238, 243 , 244 S., 53 S.Ct. 586
Upon the facts found, the decision appears to be supported by principles laid down by the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, but, so far as the application of the state Constitution is concerned, the ultimate determination of the validity of the statute necessarily rests with that court. Further, a change in circumstances may create a [290 U.S. 177, 179] situation different from that to which the opinion below was addressed.
In order to prevent the possibility that the decree may operate injuriously in the future, the decree will be modified by providing that the members of the state tax commission, or that commission, may apply at any time to the court below, by bill or otherwise, as they may be advised, for a further order or decree, in case it shall appear that the statute has been sustained by the state court as valid under the state Constitution, or that by reason of a change in circumstances the statute may be regarded as imposing a valid tax. See Minnesota Rate Case, 230 U.S. 352 , at page 473. 33 S.Ct. 729, 48 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1151, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 18.
Decree modified as stated in the opinion and, as modified, affirmed.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Citation: 290 U.S. 177
Docket No: No. 541
Argued: November 15, 1933
Decided: December 04, 1933
Court: United States Supreme Court
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)