United States v. Okaloosa County, Fla.
| Decision Date | 20 March 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 177.,177. |
| Citation | 59 F. Supp. 426 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. OKALOOSA COUNTY, FLA., et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida |
George Earl Hoffman, U. S. Atty., of Pensacola, Fla., and John W. Manley, and Marvin J. Sonosky, Attys., Department of Justice, both of Washington, D.C., for the United States.
J. Tom Watson, Atty. Gen., of Florida, and George M. Powell and Lamar Warren, Asst. Attys. Gen., for defendants.
On the 19th day of September, 1944, the complainant, United States of America, filed its complaint in this court, which in substance alleges that complainant is the owner and in possession of some 13,000 acres of land in Okaloosa County, Florida; that the defendants have taxed the property for the years 1941, 1942 and 1943 and threatened to continue to levy a tax upon this property for the years subsequent.
The complainant prays for process, the issuance of an injunction to restrain the levy and collection of the tax for the removal of the cloud upon its title caused by this levy and assessment, and the cancellation of tax certificates issued as a consequence thereto, and for general relief.
A motion to dismiss the complaint was filed October 9, 1944, upon the ground that the Court lacks jurisdiction, because this is a suit to enjoin, suspend, or restrain the assessment, levy, or collection of a tax imposed by or pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, there being a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy available to complainant in the courts of said State.
This motion is, of course, predicated upon the amendment to the Act of August 21, 1937, Jud.Code § 24(1), 28 U.S.C.A. § 41 (1), which provides that no district court shall have jurisdiction of any suit to enjoin the collection of any tax imposed by or pursuant to the laws of any State where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had at law or in equity in the courts of that State.
It is fundamental that property owned by the United States government is immune from taxation and before a district court can be deprived of its jurisdiction, in cases of this character, it must appear not only that a speedy and efficient remedy is available to the government in the courts of the State of Florida, but it must also appear that the assessment levy or collection of a tax was imposed by or pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida. It is conceded that there exists in Florida a plain, speedy and efficient remedy available to complainant in the Court of the State. This suit is brought because of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Livingston
...County, Okl. v. United States, 10 Cir., 139 F.2d 248; City of Springfield v. United States, 1 Cir., 99 F.2d 860; United States v. Okaloosa County, D.C. N.D.Fla., 59 F.Supp. 426. The old notion that the sovereign is not bound by its legislative restrictions upon the exercise of remedial righ......
-
United States v. 68,716 SQUARE FEET OF LAND, ETC.
...1 Cir., 1938, 99 F.2d 860, 862, and holdings, United States v. Woodworth, D.C.W.D.N.Y.1945, 60 F.Supp. 844; United ed States v. Okaloosa County, D.C.N.D. Fla.1945, 59 F.Supp. 426, which do not construe 28 U.S.C.A. ß 41(1), as amended, 50 Stat. 738 (1937), to deprive this Court of jurisdicti......
-
United States v. Woodworth, 6
...Committee reports support this interpretation.1 See also City of Springfield v. United States, 1 Cir., 99 F.2d 860; United States v. Okaloosa County, D. C., 59 F. Supp. 426. 2. We reject appellants' contention that a three-judge court was necessary, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 380 now § 2281.......