|
|
Spielman Motor Sales Co., Inc. v. Dodge, 295 U.S. 89 (1935)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Spielman Motor Sales Co., Inc. v. Dodge, 295 U.S. 89 (1935)
Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 295 U.S. 78, click here.
Spielman Motor Sales Co., Inc. v. Dodge No. 567 Argued March 11, 1935 Decided April 29, 1935 295 U.S. 89
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Syllabus
1. District attorneys in New York, though classed by statute as local officers, are part of the judicial system of the State, and, in enforcing state laws of general application by criminal prosecution, perform a state function within their respective counties, and are officer of the State within the meaning of § 266, Jud.Code. P. 92.
2. In the absence of a clear showing of necessity, a federal court of equity will not restrain the institution of a criminal prosecution in a state court upon the ground that the statute defining the offense violates the Federal Constitution, but will leave the party to set up the federal question in the state court and to his right of review in this Court. P. 95.
3. Allegations that enforcement of a state regulation of one’s business will cause irreparable damage and deprivation of "rights, liberties, properties, and immunities" are in themselves conclusions of law which will not sustain the jurisdiction of equity to enjoin a criminal prosecution for violation of the regulation. P. 96.
The bill, to restrain prosecution under a state statute making it a misdemeanor to violate a "Code of Fair Competition in the Motor Vehicle Retailing Trade," alleged that the plaintiff had a large business in buying and selling such vehicles, but did not show that the single prosecution in contemplation would work serious interference with the business. Held insufficient.
4. Decree dismissing a bill on the merits affirmed on the ground that the allegations failed to state a case within the equity jurisdiction of the District Court. P. 97.
8 F.Supp. 437 affirmed.
Appeal from a decree of the District Court of three judges dismissing the bill in a suit to enjoin a criminal prosecution under a state law.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Spielman Motor Sales Co., Inc. v. Dodge, 295 U.S. 89 (1935) in 295 U.S. 89 295 U.S. 90–295 U.S. 91. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=CRWHAKPAJLEZL1M.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Spielman Motor Sales Co., Inc. v. Dodge, 295 U.S. 89 (1935), in 295 U.S. 89, pp. 295 U.S. 90–295 U.S. 91. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=CRWHAKPAJLEZL1M.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Spielman Motor Sales Co., Inc. v. Dodge, 295 U.S. 89 (1935). cited in 1935, 295 U.S. 89, pp.295 U.S. 90–295 U.S. 91. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=CRWHAKPAJLEZL1M.
|