|
|
Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust & Savings Co. v. Hill, 281 U.S. 673 (1930)
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.
Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust & Savings Co. v. Hill, 281 U.S. 673 (1930)
Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust & Savings Co. v. Hill No. 464 Argued May 1, 1930 Decided June 2, 1930 281 U.S. 673
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI
1. A federal claim first raised by petition for rehearing in a state court is in time for purposes of review here if it was raised at the first opportunity, even though the petition was denied without opinion. P. 677.
2. Where, under repeated constructions of laws of a state, consistently acted upon in administrative practice, a suit in equity to enjoin collection was the appropriate and the only remedy against a discriminating state tax violative of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the state court, overruling its earlier decisions, denies this remedy not for want of power, but upon the ground that the party seeking it should first have exhausted an administrative remedy, which, under the decisions overruled, was never open to him, and which, under the overruling decision, it is too late for him to invoke, the judgment violates due process of law, in its primary sense of an opportunity to be heard and to defend one’s substantive right. P. 678.
3. The federal guaranty of due process extends to state action through its judicial, as well as through its legislative, executive or administrative, branch of government. P. 679.
4. Whether acting through its judiciary or through its legislature, a state may not deprive a person of all existing remedies for the enforcement of a right, which the state has no power to destroy, unless there is, or was, afforded to him some real opportunity to protect it. P. 682.
5. The state court having dismissed the bill upon a ground not sufficient to support the judgment independently, without deciding whether the plaintiff’s allegations, presenting a claim under the equal protection clause, were sustained by proof, this Court does not inquire into the merits of that claim, but reverses the judgment and remands the case for further proceedings. Id.
323 Mo. 180 reversed.
Certiorari, 280 U.S. 550, to review a judgment of the Supreme Court of Missouri affirming the dismissal of a bill to enjoin the collection of taxes.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust & Savings Co. v. Hill, 281 U.S. 673 (1930) in 281 U.S. 673 281 U.S. 674. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=ZMGWM75UKKI2ESR.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust & Savings Co. v. Hill, 281 U.S. 673 (1930), in 281 U.S. 673, page 281 U.S. 674. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=ZMGWM75UKKI2ESR.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust & Savings Co. v. Hill, 281 U.S. 673 (1930). cited in 1930, 281 U.S. 673, pp.281 U.S. 674. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=ZMGWM75UKKI2ESR.
|