CITY OF MERIDIAN
v.
SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO.

U.S. | 1959-02-24
No. 546
358 U.S. 639 Supreme Court of the United States (1959) Caution
Also reported at: 3 L. Ed. 2d 562 · 79 S. Ct. 455 · 1959 U.S. LEXIS 1492 · SCDB 1958-052
Cited by 177 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

The Supreme Court vacated a federal court decision striking down a Mississippi statute that imposed charges on public utilities for using public streets, holding that federal courts must abstain from deciding federal constitutional questions when unsettled state law issues are intertwined with those questions and state court interpretation might render the federal question moot. The Court remanded the case to the district court with instructions to stay proceedings and allow the parties to seek an authoritative state court declaration of the statute's meaning and validity under state law before addressing federal constitutional claims.

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

Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

Appellee instituted this suit for a declaratory judgment that a 1956 Mississippi statute imposing a charge on public utilities for the use of public streets and places does not apply to it, and, if it does, violates the Federal and State Constitutions. It was tried before a single district judge. After trial the district judge wrote an opinion (154 F. Supp. 736) and then entered a judgment which declared the statute in conflict with the State and Federal Constitutions and thus beyond the power of the Mississippi Legislature to enact. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court. 256 F. 2d 83. An appeal was taken to this Court pursuant to 28 U.

S. C. § 1254 (2), providing for appeal of a decision of a Court of Appeals where appellant relies on a state statute held to be “invalid as repugnant to the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States.” Appellee moved to dismiss the appeal, contending that review by appeal does not lie because the Court of Appeals decision declaring the state statute unconstitutional was based on the Constitution of Mississippi as well as the Federal Constitution. Subsequently, appellant moved the Court to vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to the District Court with instructions to vacate its judgment and convene a three-judge court under 28 U.

S. C. §§ 2281 and 2284 to consider appellee’s complaint. Appellee opposed the motion. Without passing judgment on the merits of that motion (cf. Federal Housing Administration v. The Darlington, Inc., 352 U. S. 977), we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to the District Court with directions to hold the cause while the parties repair to a state tribunal for an authoritative declaration of applicable state law.

Proper exercise of federal jurisdiction requires that controversies involving unsettled questions of state law be decided in the state tribunals preliminary to a federal court’s consideration of the underlying federal constitutional questions. See Railroad Comm’n v. Pullman Co., 312 U. S.

496. That is especially desirable where the questions of state law are enmeshed with federal questions. Spector Motor Co. v. McLaughlin, 323 U. S. 101, 105. Here, the state law problems are delicate ones, the resolution of which is not without substantial difficulty— certainly for a federal court. Cf. Thompson v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 309 U. S. 478, 483. In such a case, when the state court’s interpretation of the statute or evaluation of its validity under the state constitution may obviate any need to consider its validity under the Federal Constitution, the federal court should hold its hand, lest it render a constitutional decision unnecessarily. Railroad Comm’n v. Pullman Co., supra; Spector Motor Co. v. McLaughlin, supra, 104-105. See Leiter Minerals, Inc., v. United States, 352 U. S. 220, 228-229.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the cause is remanded to the District Court for proceedings in conformity with this opinion.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (51 total)

  • Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433 (U.S. 1971)
    …the state constitution may obviate any need to consider its validity under the Federal Constitution, the federal court should hold its hand, lest it render a constitutional decision unnecessarily.” City of Meridian v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 358 U. S. 639, 640-641 (1959). See also Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., ante, p. 41. It is no answer to contend that there is no ambiguity in the Wisconsin statute and hence .no need to abstain; in Reetz the Alaska statute could not have been more plain, or less su…
    1 / 2
  • England v. La. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 375 U.S. 411 (U.S. 1964)
    …2 Cum. Ann. Pt.), p. 9. Other States have special declaratory judgment statutes restricted to a litigation of a specified issue or issues. See I Anderson, Actions for Declaratory Judgments (1959 Supp.), §6. In Meridian v. Southern Bell T. & T. Co., 358 U. S. 639, in which the District Court was ordered to stay its hand while the parties repaired to the state court, the State involved, Mississippi, lacked a declaratory judgment procedure. See IV Martindale-Hubbell (1963), p. 979. A state court determination…
    1 / 2
  • Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241 (U.S. 1967)
    …resently codified as 42 U. S. C. § 1983, achieved measurable success in later years. See generally Note, The Civil Rights Act of 1871: Continuing Vitality, 40 Notre Dame Law. 70 (1964). See, e. g., City of Meridian v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 358 U. S. 639; Government & Civic Employees Organizing Committee, CIO v. Windsor, 353 U. S. 364; Leiter Minerals, Inc. v. United States, 352 U. S. 220; Albertson v. Millard, 345 U. S. 242; Shipman v. DuPre, 339 U. S. 321; Stainback v. Mo Hock Ke Lok Po, 336 U. S.…

Previewing 3 of 51 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw