Shell Oil Company v. Mouton

Decision Date19 May 1969
Docket NumberNo. 26493,26730.,26493
Citation410 F.2d 715
PartiesSHELL OIL COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ashton J. MOUTON, Collector of Revenue, State of Louisiana, Defendant-Appellant. Ashton J. MOUTON, Collector of Revenue, State of Louisiana, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SHELL OIL COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Cyrus A. Greco, Emmett E. Batson, Huey H. Breaux, John B. Levy, Carl E. Cooper, Louisiana Dept. of Revenue, Baton Rouge, La., for appellant.

George C. Schoenberger, Jr., Joseph G. Hebert, Jess Johnson, Jr., New Orleans, La., for appellee.

Before AINSWORTH and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges, and MITCHELL, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

These two appeals by the Louisiana Collector of Revenue were consolidated on his motion.

No. 26493. Suit was filed in this case in the United States District Court by Shell Oil Company against the Louisiana Collector of Revenue, under the provisions of LSA-R.S. 47:1576 (formerly Louisiana Act 330 of 1938) for recovery of Louisiana severance taxes paid under protest. The taxes were levied on the production of oil and gas under mineral leases granted to Shell by the United States on certain tracts of land situated in a federal military enclave, Barksdale Air Force Base in Bossier Parish, Louisiana. Shell's motion for summary judgment was granted and the Collector's motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and, alternatively, to abstain were denied, on the basis of this Court's prior decision in Mississippi River Fuel Corporation v. Cocreham, 5 Cir., 1967, 382 F.2d 929, rehearing denied, 1968, 390 F.2d 34, cert. denied, Mouton v. Mississippi River Fuel Corp., 390 U.S. 1015, 88 S.Ct. 1264, 20 L.Ed.2d 164 (1968).

No. 26730. While Shell's motion for summary judgment in the preceding case, No. 26493, was pending, this declaratory suit was filed by the Louisiana Collector of Revenue against Shell Oil Company in a Louisiana state court for judgment declaring that LSA-R.S. 47:1576 did not waive Louisiana's sovereign immunity from suit in a federal court for the recovery of taxes paid under protest, that the Louisiana Constitution of 1921 and Article III, Section 35, and Article X, Section 18 thereof, did not authorize the Louisiana Legislature to waive sovereign immunity from suit in a federal court for taxes paid under protest, and that the acts of sale and donation of the Barksdale Air Force Base lands to the United States did not pass title to oil and gas in place so as to prevent Louisiana from taxing the production of oil and gas from such lands. Shell removed the case to the federal district court. The Collector's motion to remand, based on lack of jurisdiction in the federal court, was denied, and Shell's motion to dismiss the Collector's suit for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted was maintained, on the basis of Mississippi River Fuel Corporation v. Cocreham, supra.

In Mississippi River Fuel Corporation v. Cocreham, supra, the identical questions were presented which are now before us for review. In an able opinion by Judge Wisdom, this Court held that the State of Louisiana had no right to exact severance taxes on oil and gas produced under a mineral lease from the United States to Mississippi River Fuel Corporation on land forming part of the federal military enclave, Barksdale Air Force Base in Bossier Parish, Louisiana. We said in that case (382 F.2d at 931),

"When the United States acquired title to the land, it acquired `exclusive jurisdiction\' over the property, precluding the State\'s levying and collecting a tax on oil and gas severed from the land by a third party under a lease from the United States. Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, United States Constitution; Humble Pipe Line Co. v. Waggonner, 1964, 376 U.S. 369, 84 S.Ct. 857, 11 L.Ed.2d 782."

In Mississippi River Fuel Corporation suit was filed in the United States District Court under LSA-R.S. 47:1576 for recovery of Louisiana severance taxes paid under protest. The Louisiana statute authorizes such suit in a federal or state court. We considered the Collector's contentions that the Louisiana Constitution of 1921 prohibited such suits except in a Louisiana state court and held that under the provisions of Article X, Section 18, of the Louisiana Constitution, the Louisiana statute complied with Louisiana constitutional provisions, and that Article III, Section 35,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Shell Oil Co. v. Secretary, Revenue and Taxation
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • November 25, 1996
    ...lands for military purposes.8 Mississippi River Fuel Corporation v. Fontenot, 234 F.2d 898 (5th Cir.1956).9 See also Shell Oil v. Mouton, 410 F.2d 715 (5th Cir.1969) and Mouton v. Sinclair Oil and Gas Company, 410 F.2d 717 (5th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 957, 90 S.Ct. 2163, 26 L.Ed.2......
  • United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Whitman
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • May 21, 1979
    ...to Bland is also misplaced. In Mississippi River Fuel Corporation v. Cocreham, 382 F.2d 929 (5th Cir. 1967), and Shell Oil Company v. Mouton, 410 F.2d 715 (5th Cir. 1969), this court affirmed decisions on the merits in Louisiana tax refund suits without invoking section 1341's jurisdictiona......
  • Ford Motor Credit Company v. Louisiana Tax Commission, 29888.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • February 22, 1971
    ...at 770; Lasker Boiler and Engineering Corp. v. Hamm, 216 F.Supp. 74 (M.D.Ala.), aff'd, 328 F.2d 429 (5th Cir. 1964). Shell Oil Co. v. Mouton, 410 F.2d 715 (5th Cir.1969), Mississippi River Fuel Corp. v. Cocreham, 382 F.2d 929 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, Mouton v. Mississippi River Fuel Corp.,......
  • MRT Exploration Co. v. McNamara, s. 83-4238
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • May 3, 1984
    ...denied sub nom., Mouton v. Mississippi River Fuel Corp., 390 U.S. 1014, 88 S.Ct. 1264, 20 L.Ed.2d 164 (1968), and Shell Oil Co. v. Mouton, 410 F.2d 715 (5th Cir.1969) as support for their contention that this Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction. The United Gas opinion reaffirmed......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT