City of Meridian v. Southern Bell Telephone Telegraph Company
| Decision Date | 24 February 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 546,546 |
| Citation | 3 L.Ed.2d 562,358 U.S. 639,79 S.Ct. 455 |
| Parties | CITY OF MERIDIAN, Appellant, v. SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. George M. Ethridge, Jr., and Lester E. Wills, for appellant.
Messrs. Charles B. Snow and John A. Boykin, Jr., for appellee.
Mr. Tally D. Riddell, for City of Gulfport and others, as amici curiae.
Appellee instituted this suit for a declaratory judgment that a 1956 Mississippi statute imposing a charge on public utilities for the use of public streets and places does not apply to it, and if it does, violates the Federal and State Constitutions. It was tried before a single district judge. After trial the district judge wrote an opinion (154 F.Supp. 736) and then entered a judgment which declared the statute in conflict with the State and Federal Constitutions and thus beyond the power of the Mississippi Legislature to enact. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court. 256 F.2d 83. An appeal was taken to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1254(2), 28 U.S.C.A. § 1254(2), providing for appeal of a decision of a Court of Appeals where appellant relies on a state statute held to be 'invalid as repugnant to the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States.' Appellee moved to dismiss the appeal, contending that review by appeal does not lie because the Court of Appeals decision declaring the state statute unconstitutional was based on the Constituion of Mississippi as well as the Federal Constitution. Subsequently, appellant moved the Court to vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to the District Court with instructions to vacate its judgment and convene a three-judge court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281 and 2284, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2281, 2284 to consider appellee's complaint. Appellee opposed the motion. Without passing judgment on the merits of that motion (cf. Federal Housing Administration v. The Darlington, Inc., 352 U.S. 977, 77 S.Ct. 381, 1 L.Ed.2d 363), we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to the District Court with directions to hold the cause while the parties repair to a state tribunal for an authoritative declaration of applicable state law.
Proper exercise of federal jurisdiction requires that controversies involving unsettled questions of state law be decided in the state tribunals preliminary to a federal court's consideration of the underlying federal constitutional questions. See Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496, 61 S.Ct. 643, 85 L.Ed. 971. That is especially desirable where the questions of state law are enmeshed with federal questions. Spector Motor Service, Inc. v. McLaughlin, 323 U.S. 101, 105, 65 S.Ct. 152, 154, 89 L.Ed. 101. Here, the state law problems are delicate ones, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Solet v. M/V CAPT. HV DUFRENE, Civ. A. No. 67-1713.
... ... Alaska Steamship Company v. Petterson, 1954, 347 U.S. 396, 74 S.Ct. 601, ... v. Petterson, supra ; Mahnich v. Southern S. S. Co., 1944, 321 U.S. 96, 64 S.Ct. 455, 88 ... ...
-
Highfield Water Co. v. Public Service Com'n
...which could eliminate the need for the federal court to reach the constitutional issue. See, e. g., Meridian v. Southern Bell T. & T. Co., 358 U.S. 639, 79 S.Ct. 455, 3 L.Ed.2d 562 (1959); Carey v. Sugar, 425 U.S. 73, 96 S.Ct. 1208, 47 L.Ed.2d 587 (1976); Harris County, supra, 420 U.S. at 8......
-
Lim v. Andrukiewicz
...to this statute by the Rhode Island Supreme Court. In support of abstention defendants cite City of Meridian v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 358 U.S. 639, 79 S.Ct. 455, 3 L.Ed.2d 562 (1959). Secondly, it is argued that decisional law subsequent to the enactment of the statute has authorit......
-
Sweet Briar Institute v. Button
...Government and Civic Employees, etc. v. Windsor, 353 U.S. 365, 366, 77 S.Ct. 839 (1957). See City of Meridian v. Southern Bell T. & T. Co., 358 U.S. 639, 640, 79 S.Ct. 455, 3 L.Ed. 2d 562 (1959); Spector Motor Service, Inc. v. McLaughlin, 323 U.S. 101, 104, 65 S.Ct. 152, 89 L.Ed. 101 (1944)......
-
Judicial Abstinence: Ninth Circuit Jurisdictional Celibacy for Claims Brought Under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act
...v. Tallahassee, 378 U.S. 539 (1964); Clay v. Sun Ins. Office, Ltd., 363 U.S. 207 (1960); Meridian v. Southern Bell Tel. and Tel. Co., 358 U.S. 639 (1959); Spector Motor Service, Inc. v. McLaughlin, 323 U.S. 101 (1944); Railroad Comm'n of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 40. See, e.g., Cin......
-
LITIGATING IMPERFECT SOLUTIONS: STATE CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS IN FEDERAL COURT.
...where plaintiff brought only a federal constitutional challenge). (82.) See, e.g., City of Meridian v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 358 U.S. 639, 641 (1959) (holding, in a case involving claims under both the federal and slate constitutions' Contracts Clauses, that when a stale court's "eva......
-
2.10 Preemption and Abstention
...the commission had the authority to issue the regulation under state law). City of Meridian v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 358 U.S. 639, 640 (1959) (abstaining in a case challenging state law regulating public utilities in order to allow the state court to decide whether the la......
-
2.10 Preemption and Abstention
...the commission had the authority to issue the regulation under state law). City of Meridian v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 358 U.S. 639, 640 (1959) (abstaining in a case challenging state law regulating public utilities in order to allow the state court to decide whether the la......