Michigan-wisconsin Pipe Line Co. v. Calvert, Comptroller of Public Accounts, et al. (347 U.S. 157)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided February 8, 1954 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 347 U.S. 157 · 74 S. Ct. 396
- Docket
- No. 198
- Argued
- January 5, 1954
- Decided
- February 8, 1954
- Term
- October Term 1953
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Clark
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
- Constitutional ruling
- State/territorial law held unconstitutional
How the Justices voted
- Majority
- Chief Justice Warren, Justice Black, Justice Douglas, Justice Clark (wrote), Justice Frankfurter, Justice Burton, Justice Reed, Justice Minton, Justice R. H. Jackson
Opinion excerpt
Mr. Justice Clark delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellants, two natural gas pipeline companies, brought separate suits against Texas State officials, appellees here, in a state district court, seeking a determination that a Texas tax statute as applied to appellants violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution of the United States, and seeking recovery of money paid under protest in compliance with the statute. The District Court sustained appellants’ contentions and entered judgment in their favor. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed, holding that the tax statute as applied is constitutional. 255 S. W. 2d 535. The Supreme Court of Texas “refused” appellants’ applications for writs of error. By state statute and procedural rule, the docket notation “refused” in denying application for writ of error signifies that the State Supreme Court deems the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals a correct one and the principles of law declared in the opinion correctly determined. Appellants were uncertain whether appeal to this Court was properly from the Court of Civil Appeals or the Supreme Court of Texas, as “the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had” within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 1257. Hence each appellant appealed from each of the courts. We postponed to the hearing of the cases on the merits a determination of the jurisdictional question.…
Excerpt of a 23,364-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.