CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY
US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for www.chanrobles.com


SOUTHWESTERN OIL CO. V. TEXAS, 217 U. S. 114 (1910)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 217 U. S. 114 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Southwestern Oil Co. v. Texas, 217 U.S. 114 (1910)

Southwestern Oil Co. v. Texas

No. 119

Argued March 2, 1910

Decided April 4, 1910

217 U.S. 114

Syllabus

This Court will not consider whether a state statute is unconstitutional under provisions of the Constitution other than those set up in the state court even if those provisions be referred to in the assignment of error.

On writ of error, this Court is not concerned with the question of whether the statute attacked as unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment violates the state constitution if the state courts have held that it does not do so.

Whether the severity of penalties for noncompliance with a state statute renders it unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment will not be considered in an action in which the state does not ask for any penalties. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 217 U. S. 115

The Fourteenth Amendment was not intended to cripple the taxing power of the states or to impose upon them any iron rule of taxation.

This Court will not speculate as to the motive of a state in adopting taxing laws, but assumes, the statute neither upon its face nor by necessary operation suggesting a contrary assumption, that it was adopted in good faith.

Except as restrained by its own or the federal Constitution, a state may prescribe any system of taxation it deems best, and it may, without violating the Fourteenth Amendment, classify occupations, imposing a tax on some and not on others, so long as it treats equally all in the same class.

An occupation tax on all wholesale dealers in certain specified articles does not on its face deprive wholesale dealers in those articles of their property without due process of law or deny them the equal protection of the law because a similar tax is not imposed on wholesale dealers in other articles, and so held as to the Kennedy Act of Texas of 1905 levying an occupation tax on wholesale dealers in coal and mineral oils.

A federal court cannot interfere with the enforcement of a state statute merely because it disapproves of the terms of the act, questions the wisdom of its enactment, or is not sure as to the precise reasons inducing the state to enact it.

100 Tex. 647 affirmed.

The facts, which involve the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Kennedy Act of Texas of 1905 for taxing certain classes of business, are stated in the opinion.





Back
ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for chanrobles.com Search for www.chanrobles.com


Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



www.chanrobles.us




QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

Browse By ->> Volume


cralaw

Browse By ->> Year


cralaw

  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
 
RED