Miller Brothers Co. v. Maryland (347 U.S. 340)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided April 5, 1954 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 347 U.S. 340 · 74 S. Ct. 535
- Docket
- No. 160
- Argued
- January 5, 1954
- Decided
- April 5, 1954
- Term
- October Term 1953
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority author
- Justice Jackson (R.H.)
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
- Constitutional ruling
- State/territorial law held unconstitutional
How the Justices voted
- Majority
- Justice Frankfurter, Justice Burton, Justice Reed, Justice Minton, Justice R. H. Jackson (wrote)
- Dissenting
- Chief Justice Warren, Justice Black, Justice Douglas (wrote), Justice Clark
Opinion excerpt
Opinion of the Court by Mr. Justice Jackson, announced by Mr. Justice Reed. Appellant is a Delaware merchandising corporation which only sells directly to customers at its store in Wilmington, Delaware. It does not take orders by mail or telephone. Residents of nearby Maryland come to its store and make purchases, some of which they carry away, some are delivered to them in Maryland by common carrier, and others by appellant’s own truck. Maryland lays upon its residents an excise tax on “the use, storage or consumption” in the State of such articles, and it requires every vendor to collect and remit the tax to the State. This the appellant did not do. Finding appellant’s truck in Maryland, the State seized it, and the State’s highest court has held it liable for the use tax on all goods sold in the Delaware store to Maryland residents, however delivered. This was against appel- • lant’s timely contention that the Maryland taxing act, so construed, conflicts with the federal commerce power and attempts to extend the power of the State beyond its borders in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The parties have stipulated facts in detail, and, so far as they seem important, we set them forth in the Appendix. The grounds advanced by Maryland for holding the Delaware vendor liable come to this: (1) the vendor’s advertising with Delaware papers and radio…
Excerpt of a 40,487-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.