GALLARDO
v.
SANTINI FERTILIZER COMPANY

U.S. | 1927-10-24
No. 164
275 U.S. 62 Supreme Court of the United States (1927) Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 72 L. Ed. 157 · 48 S. Ct. 24 · 1927 U.S. LEXIS 252 · SCDB 1927-002
Cited by 96 cases

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.

Synopsis

A taxpayer in Puerto Rico sought to enjoin collection of local taxes by challenging their constitutionality in federal court, but while the case was pending appeal, Congress enacted legislation that eliminated federal court jurisdiction over such tax disputes. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the newly enacted statute stripped the courts of authority to hear the matter.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Holmes

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a bill in equity brought in the District Court of Porto Rico to restrain the collection of taxes imposed by the laws of Porto Rico. An injunction was issued by the District Court, on March. 31, 1925. On April 7, 1925, an appeal was allowed to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. That Court at first made a decree 'reversing the,decree of the District Court, but later, on December 18, 1926, set that decree aside and transferred the case 'to this Court, under the Act of September 14,. 1922, c. 305; 42 Stat..837, conceiving that the jurisdiction of the District Court was' invoked solely upon the ground that the controversy involved the construction or application of the Constitution of the United States. On March 4, 1927, the Act of Congress was passed that took away the jurisdiction of the District Court in. this class óf cases, as explained in Smallwood v. Gallardo, ante, p. 56.

The case has been argued upon the merits and also upon a motion to remand -it to the Circuit Court of Appeals on the ground that the appeal properly was taken to that Court. As the only jurisdiction remaining anywhere is to make an order requiring the case to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction we need not discuss these matters. The decision that no jurisdiction remains comes from this Court, and -it is proper that it'should carry out its decision without unnecessary circuity by directing it to be enforced.

Decree reversed.

Bill to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (90 total)

  • Martin v. Rivers, 72 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 1954)
    …he traveler to look • and listen, the duty to stop, depending on the circumstances revealed by looking and listening. Pokora v. Wabash Ry. Co. 292 U.S. 98, 54 S.Ct. 580, 78 L.Ed. 1149, 91 A.L.R. 1049; Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Goodman, 275 U.S. 66, 48 S.Ct. 24, 72 L.Ed. 167, 56 A.L.R. 645. We approve the latter rule in this State and when, as here, it is conclusively shown that the plaintiff did not look or listen, that there was no obstruction whatever to the vision, that the accident took place in a ru…
  • Martin v. Gregoria Rivera, 99 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
    …he traveler to look and listen, the duty to stop, depending on the circumstances revealed by looking and listening. Pokora v. Wabash R. Co., 292 U.S. 98, 54 S.Ct. 580, 78 L.Ed. 1149, 91 A.L.R. 1049; Baltimore and Ohio R. Co. v. Goodman, 275 U.S. 66, 48 S.Ct. 24, 12 L.Ed. 167, 56 A.L.R. 645. We approve the latter rule in this State and when,. [*618] as here, it is conclusively shown that the plaintiff did not look or listen, that there was no obstruction whatever to the vision, that the accident took place…
  • Webster v. CSX Transp., 725 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
    …rain standing on a track, the driver must have been negligent, and contributory negligence principles will bar recovery. See Trevino v. .Union Pacific R. Co., 916 F. 2d 1230 (7th Cir.1990) (citing [*464] Baltimore & O.R. Co. v. Goodman, 275 U.S. 66, 48 S.Ct. 24, 72 L.Ed. 167 (1927) (Holmes, J.) (standard of conduct of an automobile driver is to stop and look, and, if the driver’s view of the track is obstructed, he should dismount from his automobile and walk to a point where he can see down the tracks)),…

Previewing 3 of 90 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw