SHIPMAN ET AL., TRADING AS SHIPMAN BROTHERS, ET AL.
v.
DUPRE ET AL.
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.
Shrimp fishers challenged South Carolina's fisheries regulations as unconstitutional and sought injunctive relief, but the Supreme Court vacated the District Court's dismissal on the merits and remanded the case with instructions to allow the plaintiffs an opportunity to seek a state court construction of the disputed statutory provisions before the federal court resolved the constitutional questions. The decision established that federal courts should abstain from deciding constitutional challenges to state statutes when the state courts have not yet interpreted those provisions.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
Appellants sought a declaratory judgment that certain sections of the South Carolina statute regulating the fisheries and shrimping industry were unconstitutional, and interlocutory and permanent injunctions restraining the state officials from carrying out those provisions. The statutory three-judge District Court assumed jurisdiction, decided the issues on the merits, and dismissed the complaint. 88 F. Supp. 482. From the papers submitted on appeal, it does not appear that the statutory sections in question have as yet been construed by the state courts. We are therefore of opinion that the District Court erred in disposing of the complaint on the merits. See American Federation of Labor v. Watson, 327 U. S. 582, 595-599.
The judgment of the District Court is vacated and the cause is remanded to that court with directions to retain jurisdiction of the complaint for a reasonable time, to afford appellants an opportunity to obtain, by appropriate proceedings, a construction by the state court of the statutory provisions involved.
Mr. Justice Douglas dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241 (U.S. 1967)…ion Abstention: Justice Frankfurter’s Doctrine in an Activist Era, 80 Harv. L. Rev. 604 (1967), but other courts have also ordered dismissal. Compare Government & Civic Employees Organizing Committee, CIO v. Windsor, 353 U. S. 364; Shipman v. DuPre, 339 U. S. 321, with Stainback v. Mo Hock Ke Lok Po, 336 U. S. 368; Local SSSB, United Marine Div., Int'l Longshoremen [*245]’s Assn. v. Battle, 101 F. Supp. 650 (D. C. E. D. Va.), aff’d per curiam, 342 U. S. 880. See generally Note, Judicial Abstention From the E…1 / 2
-
Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (U.S. 1967)…ate courts “have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to pass upon them.” Harrison v. NAACP, 360 U. S. 167, 176. See, e. g., Railroad Comm’n v. Pullman Co., 312 U. S. 496; Spector Motor Service, Inc. v. McLaughlin, 323 U. S. 101; Shipman v. DuPre, 339 U. S. 321; Albertson v. Millard, 345 U. S. 242; Government Employees v. Windsor, 353 U. S. 364. The Court today entirely disregards this principle. In its haste to give force to its distaste for eavesdropping, it has apparently resolved that no attention nee…
-
Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360 (U.S. 1964)…. S. 168; Spector Motor Service, Inc., v. McLaughlin, 323 U. S. 101; Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdory, 325 U. S. 450; American Federation of Labor v. Watson, 327 U. S. 582; Stainback v. Mo Hock Ke Lok Po, 336 U. S. 368; Shipman v. DuPre, 339 U. S. 321; Albertson v. Millard, 345 U. S. 242; Leiter Minerals, Inc., v. United States, 352 U. S. 220; Government & Civic Employees Organizing Committee, C. I. O., v. Windsor, 353 U. S. 364; City of Meridian v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 358 U. S. 639.…
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
- Am. Fed'n of Labor v. Watson, 327 U.S. 582 (U.S. 1946)