Pierce Oil Corporation v. City of Hope
| Decision Date | 27 January 1919 |
| Docket Number | No. 137,137 |
| Parties | PIERCE OIL CORPORATION v. CITY OF HOPE |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. W. E. Hemingway, G. B. Rose, and J. F. Loughborough, all of Little Rock, Ark., John D. Johnson, of St. Louis, Mo., and V. M. Miles, of Little Rock, Ark., for plaintiff in error.
This is a complaint brought by the plaintiff in error to enjoin the City of Hope from enforcing an ordinance that forbids the storing of petroleum, gasoline, &c. within three hundred feet of any dwelling, beyond certain small quantities specified. A demurrer to the complaint was sustained by the Supreme Court of the State. 127 Ark. 38, 191 S. W. 405. The plaintiff is engaged in the business of selling petroleum oil and gasoline and has tanks on the right of way of a railroad in the city, which it moved to that place at the city's request. The mode of construction is set forth and it is alleged that an explosion is impossible and that the presence of the tanks in no way endangers any buildings. The tanks are necessary for the business; the present position diminishes the cost of transferring oil from cars and cannot be changed without considerable expense and a reduction of the plaintiff's lawful profits. The plaintiff adds that it knows of no available place in the city where the tanks could be put and oil stored without violating the ordinance, that the ordinance is unnecessary and unreasonable, and that the enforcement of it will deprive the plaintiff of its property without due process of law contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
A long answer is not necessary. A state may prohibit the sale of dangerous oils, even when manufactured under a patent from the United States. Patterson v. Kentucky, 97 U. S. 501, 24 L. Ed. 1115. And it may make the place where they are kept or sold a criminal nuisance, notwithstanding the Fourteenth Amendment. Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S 623, 8 Sup. Ct. 273, 31 L. Ed. 205. The power 'is a continuing one, and a business lawful today may in the future, because of the changed situation, the growth of population or other causes, become a menace to the public health and welfare, and be required to yield to the public good.' Dobbins v. Los Angeles, 195 U. S. 223, 238, 25 Sup. Ct. 18, 21 (49 L. Ed. 169). The averment that the ordinance is unnecessary and unreasonable, if it be regarded as a conclusion of law upon the point which this Court must decide, is not admitted by the demurrer. If it be taken to allege that facts exist that lead to that conclusion, it stands no better. For if there are material facts of which the Court would not inform itself, as in many cases it would, Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U. S. 210, 227, 29 Sup. Ct. 67, 53 L. Ed. 150, an averment in this general form is not enough. Southern Ry. Co. v. King, 217 U. S. 524, 534, 535, 30 Sup. Ct. 594, 54 L. Ed. 868. Only facts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pennsylvania Coal Co v. Mahon, 549
...also Hadacheck v. Los Angeles, 239 U. S. 394, 36 Sup. Ct. 143, 60 L. Ed. 348, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 927; Pierce Oil Corporation v. City of Hope, 248 U. S. 498, 39 Sup. Ct. 172, 63 L. Ed. 381. Nor is a restriction imposed through exercise of the police power inappropriate as a means, merely becau......
-
Texas American Asphalt Corporation v. Walker
...225 U.S. 623, 32 S.Ct. 697, 56 L.Ed. 1229; Miller v. Schoene, 276 U.S. 272, 48 S.Ct. 246, 72 L.Ed. 568; Pierce Oil Corporation v. City of Hope, 248 U.S. 498, 39 S.Ct. 172, 63 L.Ed. 381; Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 61, 31 S.Ct. 337, 55 L.Ed. 369; Mulford v. Smith, 307 U.S.......
-
John King Mfg Co v. City Council of August, 392
...S. 419, 23 S. Ct. 204, 47 L. Ed. 240; Williams v. Talladega, 226 U. S. 404, 33 S. Ct. 116, 57 L. Ed. 275; Pierce Oil Corporation v. Hope, 248 U. S. 498, 39 S. Ct. 172, 63 L. Ed. 381. In Village of Terrace Park v. Errett, 273 U. S. 710, 47 S. Ct. 100, 71 L. Ed. 852, and Village of University......
-
City of Little Rock v. Linn
...North Little Rock v. Rose, 136 Ark. 298, 206 S.W. 449; Pierce Oil Corp. v. City of Hope, 127 Ark. 38, 191 S.W. 405, aff'd. 248 U.S. 498, 39 S.Ct. 172, 63 L.Ed. 381; City of Helena v. Miller, 88 Ark. 263, 114 S.W. 237. Where a city board is invested with discretion in any matter, the exercis......
-
The 'Euclidean' Strategy: Authorizing and Implementing the Legislative Districting of Permissible Land Uses
...individual cases that may turn out to be innocuous in themselves. Hebe Co. v. Shaw, 248 U.S. 297, 303; Pierce Oil Corp. v. City of Hope, 248 U.S. 498, 500. The inclusion of a reasonable margin to insure effective enforcement, will not put upon a law, otherwise valid, the stamp of invalidity......
-
The Limitations of 'Sic Utere Tuo...': Planning by Private Law Devices
...no room for considering reciprocity of advantage. There was no reciprocal advantage to the owner prohibited from using his oil tanks in 248 U.S. 498; his brickyard, in 239 U.S. 394; his livery stable, in 237 U.S. 171; his billiard hall, in 225 U.S. 623; his oleomargarine factory, in 127 U.S......
-
CHAPTER 4 LOCAL LAND USE REGULATION OF EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES: EVOLVING JUDICIAL AND REGULATORY APPROACHES
...major decision dealing with a mineral processing facility. Hadachek v. Sebastian, 239 U.S. 394 (1915). See also Pierce Oil Corp. v. Hope, 248 U.S. 498 (1919) (upholding ordinance restricting oil storage facilities within 300 feet of a dwelling house); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1888)......
-
CHAPTER 5 LOCAL LAND USE REGULATION OF OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT
...a "single use" zoning ordinance prohibiting oil storage facilities within 300 feet of a dwelling house. Pierce Oil Corp. v. City of Hope, 248 U.S. 498, 39 S.Ct. 172, 63 L.Ed. 381 (1919). Other examples of "single use" zoning ordinances being challenged include: Reinman v. City of Little Roc......