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


PRIVATE TRUCK COUNCIL OF AMERICA, INC. v. QUINN, 476 U.S. 1129 (1986)

Subscribe to Cases that cite INC. v. QUINN, 476 U.S. 1129 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

PRIVATE TRUCK COUNCIL OF AMERICA, INC. v. QUINN , 476 U.S. 1129 (1986)

476 U.S. 1129

PRIVATE TRUCK COUNCIL OF AMERICA, INC., et al.
v.
Rodney S. QUINN, Secretary of State of Maine, et al.
No. 85-1423

Supreme Court of the United States

May 19, 1986

On petition for writ of

certiorari to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Justice WHITE, with whom Justice BRENNAN and Justice O'CONNOR join, dissenting.

In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine held that an allegation that a State has violated the Commerce Clause is not cognizable in an action under 42 U.S.C. 1983. 503 A.2d 214 (1986). This decision, while supported by the weight of authority, see, e.g., Consolidated Freightways Corp. v. Kassel, 730 F.2d 1139 (CA8), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 834 (1984), conflicts with the holding in Kennecott Corp. v. Smith, 637 F.2d 181, 186, n. 5 (CA3 1980). I would grant certiorari to resolve this conflict.

This case also presents the question whether persons subjected to an unconstitutional tax, the nonpayment of which is a crime, may bring a refund action under the Fourteenth Amendment if no state refund procedure is available. The Supreme Judicial Court recognized that the Fourteenth Amendment may require a refund of unconstitutional taxes paid under compulsion. See Carpenter v. Shaw, 280 U.S. 363, 369, 123 (1930); Ward v. Board of County Comm'rs, 253 U.S. 17, 24, 422 (1920). However, the court rejected the " implied duress" theory of Atchison, T. & S.F. R. Co. v. O'Connor, 223 U.S. 280, 286, 217 (1912), and held that petitioners have no right of recovery under the Fourteenth Amendment

Page 476 U.S. 1129 , 1130

because they failed to present evidence that the State actually threatened them with arrest or seizure of personal property if they failed to pay the tax in question. Because this holding calls into question the continuing vitality of Atchison, I would grant certiorari on this issue as well.





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