GLENN ET AL.
v.
FIELD PACKING CO.
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.
Field Packing Company challenged a Kentucky tax of 10 cents per pound on oleomargarine sales, claiming it violated both the state constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision striking down the tax as an unconstitutional prohibition rather than a valid tax, but modified the decree to allow the state tax commission to seek relief if Kentucky's courts later upheld the statute or circumstances changed.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
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), 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 & N. R. Co., 213 U.S. 175, 191; Hurn v. Oursler, 289 U.S. 238, 243, 244.
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 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 Cases, 230 U.S. 352, at p. 473.
Decree modified as stated in the-opinion and, as modified, affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (25 total)
-
Frink v. Orleans Corp., 159 Fla. 646 (Fla. 1947)…so proposed represented and limited by plaintiffs in a substantial respect which shall cause the same to be against the public welfare of and in said city. As precedent and authority for so retaining jurisdiction, compare Glenn v. Field Packing Co., 290 U.S. 177, 179, 78 L. ed. 252, 254, and see Fletcher, Equity Pleading and Practice, Sec. 703; and this Court does hereby retain jurisdiction of this cause for the purposes stated.” [*659] It appears to us, after having set forth the material factual condition…
-
Mobil OIL Corp. v. Shevin, 354 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 1977)…le to the federal appellate courts but not the litigants. There are, of course, one or more forms of abstention. Also, as in Lee v. Bickell, 292 U.S. 415, 426, 54 S.Ct. 727, 78 L.Ed. 1337 (1934), and in Glenn v. Field Packing Co., 290 U.S. 177, 179, 54 S.Ct. 138, 78 L.Ed. 252 (1933), the appellate court could expressly leave open the possibility of modifying its decision if a later state court determination is made to the contrary. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in this case neither abstained nor author…1 / 2
-
R.R. Comm'n of Tex. v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (U.S. 1941)…us nor to the district court but to the supreme court of Texas. In this situation a federal court of equity is asked to decide an issue by making a tentative answer which may be displaced tomorrow by a state adjudication. Glenn v. Field Packing Co., 290 U. S. 177; Lee v. Bickell, 292 U. S. 415. The reign of law is hardly promoted if an unnecessary ruling of a federal court is thus supplanted by a controlling decision of a state court. The resources of equity are equal to an adjustment that will avoid the wa…
Previewing 3 of 25 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hurn v. Oursler, 289 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1933)
- The Minn. Rate Cases. Simpson v. Shepard, 230 U.S. 352 (U.S. 1913)
- Siler et. al. v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 213 U.S. 175 (U.S. 1909)