MILLER & LUX, INCORPORATED,
v.
SACRAMENTO & SAN JOAQUIN DRAINAGE DISTRICT
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.
Miller & Lux, Incorporated challenged a California drainage district tax assessment on its lands, contending that the state law prevented it from proving its lands would receive no special benefits and therefore violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ of error, holding that a state may lawfully establish drainage districts and levy taxes on included lands for local improvements without requiring a showing of direct benefits to each parcel, absent flagrant abuse or purely arbitrary action.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the court.
This cause is here upon writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State of California. 182 California, 252. There is also an application for certiorari, but under the settled practice no adequate grounds therefor are shown.
By the Act of May 26, 1913, effective August 10, 1913 (Stats. 1913, p. 252), the legislature of California undertook to create the Sacramento and San Joaquin Drainage District, including 1,725,553 acres along the general course of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, and particularly an extensive area south of Stockton. The Reclamation Board,-appointed as directed by the statute, levied a tax of $250,000 for general preliminary expenses incidental to the project and appointed assessors to apportion the same. Certain of plaintiff in error’s lands lying south of Stockton were assessed at five cents per acre, and to annul this assessment it began the present proceeding. In support of the writ of error reliance is placed upon the contention that, as construed by the state courts, the Act of 1913 denies plaintiff in error opportunity to show that its lands will receive no special cr direct benefits from the proposed works, and therefore conflicts with the Fourteenth Amendment. But we think that when the writ, was sued out (May, 1920) this claim had already become too unsubstantial to support our jurisdiction as defined by the Act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, 39 Stat.
726. Since Houck v. Little River Drainage District, (1915) 239 U. S. 254, the doctrineJias been definitely settled that in the absence of flagrant abuse or purely arbitrary action a State may establish drainage districts and tax lands therein for local improvements, and that none of such lands may escape liability solely because they will not receive direct benefits. The allegations of the original complaint are wholly insufficient to raise the issue in respect of arbitrary legislative action presented by Myles Salt Co. v. Iberia Drainage District, 239 U. S. 478.
The petition, for certiorari is denied and the writ of error is dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Martin v. Dade Muck Land Co., 95 Fla. 530 (Fla. 1928)…appropriate taxation for the local improvement, solely because they will not receive direct or exactly equal benefits, where no arbitrary and oppressive action is clearly and fully shown. See Miller & Lux v. Sacramento & San Joaquin Drainage Dist., 256 U. S. 129, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 404; Valley Farms Co. of Yonkers v. Westchester County, 261 U. S. 155, 43 Sup. Ct. Rep. 261; Houck v. Little River Drainage Dist., 239 U. S. 254, 36 Sup. Ct. [*579] Rep. 58; Embree v. Kansas City & Liberty Boulevard Road Dist., 240…
-
Jinkins v. Entzminger, 102 Fla. 167 (Fla. 1931)…a; Houck v. Little River Drainage District, 239 U. S. 254, 60 L. Ed. 266; Valley Farms Co. v. Westchester, 261 U. S. 155, 67 L. Ed. 585; Milheim v. Moffatt Tunnel District, 262 U. S. 710; 67 L. Ed. 1194; Miller & Lux v. Sacramento Drainage District, 256 U. S. 129; 65 L. Ed. 859; Spencer v. Merchant, 125 U. S. 345, 31 L. Ed. 763. From a consideration of the foregoing, it appears that the [*175] District' contemplated and created by the Act constituting the Upper St. Johns River Navigation District was of the…
-
Burnett v. Greene, 105 Fla. 35 (Fla. 1931)…& Charleston Railroad Co. v. Pace, 75 Law. Ed. 315. See also St. Louis & S. W. R. R. Co. v. Nattin, 277 U. S. 157, 72 Law. Ed. 830; Valley Farms Co. v. Westchester Co., 261 U. S. —, 67 Law. Ed. 585; Miller & Lux v. Sacramento & S. J. Drainage Dist., 256 U. S. 129, 65 Law. Ed. 859; Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Western Crawford Road Improvement Dist., 266 U. S. 187, 67 Law. Ed. 237. If the procedure is in an administrative tribunal it is subject to judicial review. If the procedure is in a judicial tribun…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Houck v. Little River Drainage Dist., 239 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1915)
- Myles Salt Co. v. Bd. of Comm'rs of the Iberia & ST. Mary Drainage Dist., 239 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1916)