OKLAHOMA GIN COMPANY
v.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
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.
The Oklahoma Corporation Commission issued an order fixing maximum rates for cotton ginning after finding the Oklahoma Gin Company had engaged in price-fixing, and imposed fines when the company violated the order without seeking judicial review beforehand. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment, holding that the statutory provision authorizing penalties for disobedience to the Commission's order was unconstitutional because it denied the company an opportunity for judicial review of the order before being punished for violating it.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Brandéis delivered the opinion of the court.
The Corporation Commission of Oklahoma having found under § 8235 of the Revised Laws of 1910 that the Oklahoma Gin Company and four other concerns in the town of Chandler had combined and raised the charges for ginning cotton, on October 17,' 1913. fixed a schedule of rates lower than those then in force. The company thereafter charged rates in excess of those so fixed; and three separate complaints against it alleging violation of the order were filed with the Commission. Being summoned to show cause why it should not be punished for contempt the company admitted violation of the order, but alleged that it was void, among other reasons, because § 8235 was in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment. After a full hearing at which new evidence was introduced, the Commission affirmed, on October 10, 1914, the rates fixed; made a finding that the violation of the order was wilful; imposed on the company a fine of $500 and costs under each of the three separate complaints; directed refund of all amounts collected in excess of prescribed rates; and declared also: “A fine will be imposed for each day the order has been violated, and the matter as to the number of days and the amounts of fines to be imposed upon the defendant, other than those mentioned in the information, will be left open for adjustment upon taking of, evidence as to the number of dayte violated.” An appeal was taken by the company to the Supreme Court of the State, which affirmed the order and, thereafter, denied two petitions for rehearing. The case comes here on writ of error under § 237 of the Judicial Code as amended.
This case was argued and submitted with Oklahoma Operating Co. v. Love, decided this day, ante, 331. For the reasons set forth in the opinion in that case the provision concerning penalties for disobedience to an order of the Commission was void because it deprived the company of the opportunity of a judicial review. The judgment must, therefore, be reversed. It is unnecessary to consider other contentions of plaintiff in error. Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miami Laundry Co. v. Fla. Dry Cleaning & Laundry Bd., 134 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1938)…an authorized board, even though they include provision for price fixing, if done after hearing and notice, will not render them violative of due process and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Gin Company v. State of Oklahoma, 252 U. S. 339, 40 Sup. Ct. 341, 64 L. Ed. 600; Tagg Brothers & Morehead v. U. S., 280 U. S. 420, 50 Sup. Ct. 220, 74 L. Ed. 524. From these and other cases cited, it may be safely stated that the test of this power to fix prices by the Legislature is not always o…1 / 2
-
Thompson v. Standard Oil Co. of N.J., 67 F.2d 644 (4th Cir. 1933)…by federal officials holding positions created by acts of Congress; Bock v. Perkins, 139 U. S. 628, 11 S. Ct. 677, 35 L. Ed. 314, a case arising before the Act of 1887-8; First National Bank of Canton, Pa. v. Williams, 252 U. S. 504, 40 S. Ct. 372, 64 L. Ed. 600; Eighmy v. Poucher (C. C.) 83 F. 855; but it is obvious that in all these cases, the relation of the plaintiff’s claim to a federal statute is much more intimate and direct than in the ease at bar. We are not persuaded, as seems to have been held in…
-
Frost v. Corp. Comm'n of Okla. (W.D. Okla. 1927)…uld sit in the same capacity on review as the state Corporation Commission in making the order appealed from. In cases of Oklahoma Operating Co. v. Love et al., 252 U. S. 331, 40 S. Ct. 338, 64 L. Ed. 596, and Oklahoma Gin Co. v. State of Oklahoma, 252 U. S. 339, 40 S. Ct. 341, 64 L. Ed. 600, the action of the state Corporation Commission under a different statute was involved, to wit: Section 8235, Revised Laws Oklahoma 1910, and under the then existing procedure no right of appeal to the Supreme Court exi…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence