Williams v. Riley
| Decision Date | 25 November 1929 |
| Docket Number | No. 12,12 |
| Citation | 50 S.Ct. 63,280 U.S. 78,74 L.Ed. 175 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS et al. v. RILEY, State Controller of California |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Edwin C. Ewing and W. R. Crawford, both of Seattle, Wash., for appellants.
Messrs. Frank L. Guerena and U. S. Webb, both of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
By Acts approved July 11, 1916, chapter 241, 39 Stat. 355, and November 9, 1921, chapter 119, 42 Stat. 212 (23 USCA § 1 et seq.), Congress provided for aid to the states in roadmaking and directed that 'all highways constructed or reconstructed under the provisions of this act shall be free from tolls of all kinds.' 23 USCA § 9. California assented to the provisions of these acts and under them received large sums of money from the United States.
By the motor vehicle fuel tax statutes, chapter 267, Acts 1923, chapter 359, Acts 1925, and chapters 716, 795, Acts 1927, the California Legislature defined motor vehicle fuel, and directed that all distributors of it should be licensed and pay taxes to the controller of the state, amounting to three cents per gallon sold, less an allowance of 1 per centum. These statutes further provides for reimbursing purchasers of fuel not used for operating vehicles upon public highways.
Appellants, along with thousands of other citizens and taxpayers of California, operate motor vehicles along the highways. They have procured and must hereafter procedure the necessary fuel from licensed distributors at prices enhanced by the amount of the three-cent tax.
The original bill, filed in the District Court of the United States August 4, 1928, names as the only defendant the state controller-the officer charged with the duty of enforcing the motor vehicle fuel tax statutes. It proceeds upon the theory that those statutes, under the form of taxing dealers from whom appellants and all other operators of motor vehicles must buy, in effect exact tolls for the use of the highways, also grant certain favors to the distributors, and deprive all such purchasers of their property without due process of law. Therefore, it is said, they conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment, the Federal Highway Acts, and the Constitution of California. The prayer is for a decree declaring their invalidity and for an injunction restraining defendant from attempting to enforce them, etc.
In the court below-three judges sitting-the bill was dismissed, without written opinion.
Ap...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fuller v. Volk
...389, 11 S.Ct. 308, 34 L.Ed. 987 (1891), the Supreme Court has adhered to the view of Russell v. Stansell. See Williams v. Riley, 280 U.S. 78, 50 S.Ct. 63, 74 L.Ed. 175 (1929); Rogers v. Hennepin County, 239 U.S. 621, 36 S.Ct. 217, 60 L.Ed. 469 (1916); Wheless v. St. Louis, 180 U.S. 379, 21 ......
-
Corr v. Metro. Washington Airports Auth.
...based on the holding in Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 486, 43 S.Ct. 597, 67 L.Ed. 1078 (1923) and Williams v. Riley, 280 U.S. 78, 80, 50 S.Ct. 63, 74 L.Ed. 175 (1929). In Frothingham, a taxpayer-plaintiff argued that she had standing to challenge certain federal expenditures because ......
-
Potrero Hill Community Action Com. v. Housing Authority
...categories of class actions, but Snyder nonetheless retains the substance of the earlier rule. 3 See Williams v. Riley, 1929, 280 U.S. 78, 50 S.Ct. 63, 74 L.Ed. 175; Scott v. Frazier, 1920, 253 U.S. 243, 40 S.Ct. 503, 64 L.Ed. 883; Rogers v. Hennepin County, 1916, 239 U.S. 621, 36 S.Ct. 217......
-
Monamotor Oil Co. v. Johnson
...way in common with people generally. Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 488, 43 S. Ct. 597, 67 L. Ed. 1078; Williams v. Riley, 280 U. S. 79, 50 S. Ct. 63, 74 L. Ed. 175. It is true there are questions raised as to whether naptha imported into Iowa and blended might escape the penalty of the......