FOX, TAX COMMISSIONER OF WEST VIRGINIA,
v.
GULF REFINING 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.
Gulf Refining Company challenged West Virginia's Chain Store Act, which imposed taxes on chain stores, arguing that gasoline filling stations were not "stores" within the Act's meaning and that the tax violated constitutional protections. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision enjoining enforcement of the Act, holding that the lower court had improperly decided the threshold question of whether filling stations qualified as stores, and remanded the case for the court to address only the remaining question of whether certain specific filling stations operated by Gulf were covered by the Act.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
The appellee brought this suit to restrain the enforcement of the West Virginia Chain Store Act (c. 36, West Virginia Acts, 1933), upon the grounds (1) that gasoline filling stations were not “ stores ” within the meaning of the Act; (2) that, if the Act were interpreted to include such filling stations, it violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States; and (3) that if the foregoing questions were resolved against appellee, there were certain filling stations, particularly described, which were not stores “ belonging to, operated or controlled ” by appellee.
The District Court of three judges (28 U. S. C. 380) entered a final decree permanently enjoining the enforcement of the Act, and the case comes here op appeal. In so deciding, the District Court sustained the first of the above-mentioned contentions of appellee, and also the second contention with respect to the denial of the equal protection of the laws, following its decision to the same effect in Standard Oil Co. v. Fox, 6 F. Supp. 494. That decision was reversed by this Court. Fox v. Standard Oil Co., 294 U. S. 87. The District Court did not determine the third contention of appellee, as to its relation to certain gasoline stations, and that is the only question now sought to be presented to this Court. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the District Court, composed as above stated, in order that it may consider and decide that issue.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dukes v. The City OF NEW Orleans & Honorable Moon Landrieu, 501 F.2d 706 (5th Cir. 1974)…stuff market to all other operators regardless of how well established or desirable their operations may be or might otherwise become. This factor distinguishes the present matter from Stanley v. Public Util. Comm’n, 1935, 295 U.S. 76, 55 S.Ct. 628, 79 L.Ed. 1311, in which the Supreme Court upheld legislation somewhat similar to that challenged here, but which operated only to limit entry into the regulated field to qualifying applicants, not to bar future entry altogether. There, a 1933 Maine statute requir…
-
Gulf Ref. Co. v. Fox, 297 U.S. 381 (U.S. 1936)…Refining Company, it appeared that this question had not been determined by the District Court and, on the reversal of its decree, the cause was remanded .to the District Court that it might consider and decide that issue. Fox v. Gulf Refining Co., 295 U. S. 75. The question, in the case of the Gulf Refining Company, related to 568 filling stations operated under particular arrangements with “Authorized Licensed Dealers.” These arrangements were evidenced by a lease of the premises from the dealer to the…
-
Waldo Frank v. Herter, 269 F.2d 245 (D.C. Cir. 1959)…e of State of New York, 1949, 336 U.S. 106, 110, 69 S.Ct. 463, 93 L.Ed. 533; Mayflower Farms, Inc. v. Ten Eyck, 1936, 297 U.S. 266, 274, 56 S.Ct. 457, 80 L.Ed. 675 (Cardozo dissenting); Stanley v. Public Util. Com’n, 1935, 295 U.S. 76, 55 S.Ct. 628, 79 L.Ed. 1311; Murphy v. State of California, 1912, 225 U.S. 623, 32 S.Ct. 697, 56 L.Ed. 1229; Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 1911, 220 U.S. 61, 78-79, 31 S.Ct. 337, 55 L.Ed. 369; Watson v. State of Maryland, 1910, 218 U.S. 173, 30 S.Ct. 644, 54 L.Ed. 987.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- FOX v. Standard Oil Co. of N.J., 294 U.S. 87 (U.S. 1935)