KNOP
v.
MONONGAHELA RIVER CONSOLIDATED COAL AND COKE COMPANY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this appeal concerning West Virginia's coal inspection statute, the Supreme Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the case because there was no genuine federal question presented. The Court reasoned that since it had already upheld the statute's validity in a prior decision and neither party challenged that validity, there could be no remaining controversy over whether the statute conflicted with the Federal Constitution.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
[*488] Mb. Justice Brewer,
after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.
An appeal was taken under § 5 of the act creating the Circuit Court of Appeals. 28 Stat. 826, 827. The mere construction of a state statute does not of itself present a Federal question: But the contention of appellants is that the Circuit Court improperly construed the act of 1904; that correctly construed it applies not merely to sales by boat-or barge load, or some aliquot part thereof,, but also to sales by weight or measurement, and that under such construction a question is presented of a conflict between it and the Federal 'Constitution.
But the difficulty with this contention is, first, that the statute construed as ‘applied to. boat and barge loads' has been declared valid by this court; and further, that there is no claim by the appellee of any invalidity in the statute, but only of its inapplicability to the facts. -In the face of the decision of this court.and the.claim of the appellee it is difficult to see how there can be any question of a conflict between the legislation and the Federal Constitution. After a final decision, it is going too far to hold that there" still remains an undecided question, and that when we have held that a statute of .a State is valid there remains a controversy as to its validity, and this is emphatically true when neither .party challenges that decision. Nor for like reason does there appear any ground for holding that there is a question as to the construction or application of the Constitution. While in § 10 of Art. I of the Federal Constitution there is a recognition of the power of the State to pass inspection laws, yet to justify a holding that the application of the Federal Constitution is involved there should be a question as to the relation between some constitutional provision and the state statute.
Under these circumstances we are of opinion that this court has no jurisdiction, and the appeal' must be
Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Borden Co. v. Odham, 121 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 1959)…s involved, the following cases are pertinent: Starin v. New York, 1885, 115 U.S. 248, 6 S.Ct. 28, 29 L.Ed. 388; Central Land Co. v. Laidley, 1895, 159 U.S. 103, 16 S.Ct. 80, 40 L.Ed. 91; Knop v. Monongahela River Consolidated Coal & Coke Co., 1908, 211 U.S. 485, 29 S.Ct. 188, 53 L.Ed. 294. Constitutional questions that are merely colorable and unrelated to the particular facts presented pose no substantial basis upon which direct appeal as matter of right will lie to this court. Evans v. Carroll, Fla.1958…
-
Moore-Mansfield Constr. Co. v. Elec. Installation Co., 234 U.S. 619 (U.S. 1914)…is one which involved the construction or application of the Constitution of the United States. We are, therefore, precluded from an examination of the merits of the case, Cosmopolitan Mining Co. v. Walsh, 193 U. S. 460; Knop v. Monongahela &c. Co., 211 U. S. 485, and the appeal must be dismissed.…
-
Standard Oil Co. of Ky. v. State of Tenn., 217 U.S. 413 (U.S. 1910)