Supreme Court of the United States, 1933

Glenn v. Field Packing Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided December 4, 1933 · Per Curiam

290 U.S. 177; 54 S. Ct. 138; 78 L. Ed. 252; 1933 U.S. LEXIS 453 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. S. H. Brown, Assistant Attorney General of Kentucky, with whom Mr. Bailey P. Wootton, Attorney General, and Mr. Francis M. Burke, Assistant Attorney General, were on the brief, for appellants., ■ Mr. William Marshall Bullitt, with whom Messrs. Leo T. Wolford and Wm. B. Lockhart were on the brief, for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

43 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.

Martin, Comr. of Revenue v. Nocero Ice Cream Co. (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) 1937)
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman (Supreme Court of the United States 1984)
Century 21 Shows, Inc. v. State of Iowa (District Court, S.D. Iowa 1972)
Shames v. State of Nebraska (United States District Court, Nebraska 1971)
Bryan v. Austin (District Court, E.D. South Carolina 1957)
Anderson v. Ludgin (Conn. 1978)
Brackman v. Kruse (Mont. 1948)
In re All Assessments (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001)
Revenue Cabinet v. Saylor (Ky. Ct. App. 1987)
Western Food Plan, Inc. v. J. D. Macfarlane (10th Cir. 1978)
Western Food Plan, Inc. v. MacFarlane (10th Cir. 1978)
Southwest Airlines Company v. Texas International Airlines, Inc. v. Texas Aeronautics Commission, Intervenor-Appellee (5th Cir. 1977)
Mobil Oil Corp. v. Shevin (Fla. 1977)
Wall v. American Optometric Association, Inc. (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia 1974)
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. City of North Kansas (8th Cir. 1960)
NATIONAL ASS'N FOR ADVANCE. OF COLORED PEOPLE v. Patty (District Court, E.D. Virginia 1958)
National Ass'n v. Patty (District Court, E.D. Virginia 1958)
Romero v. Weakley (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 1955)
Chicago Great Western Ry. Co. v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. Co. (8th Cir. 1952)
Pierce v. Hildebrand (District Court, S.D. Iowa 1952)
Anderson Nat. Bank v. Reeves (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) 1942)
Green v. Phillips Petroleum Co. (8th Cir. 1941)
Southern Linen Supply Co. v. City of Hazard (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) 1941)
Modern Woodmen of America v. Casados (District Court, D. New Mexico 1936)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This suit was brought by respondent, Field Packing Company, against the State Tax Commission of Kentucky and its members to restrain the enforcement of that part of chapter 158 of the Acts of the 1932 Session of the General Assembly of Kentucky which imposed a tax of 10 cents per pound on all' oleomargarine sold within the State. The statute was assailed as being in violation of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the State and of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The District Court, composed of three judges (28 U.S.C. 380), granted an interlocutory injunction and on final hearing entered a decree making the injunction permanent.

The District Court held that the statute, although in the form of a taxing law, was in reality a prohibition of the sale of oleomargarine in Kentucky and hence was invalid under the state constitution. The question presented under the Federal Constitution was not decided. Siler v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 213 U.S. 175, 191; Hurn v. Oursler, 289 U.S. 238, 243, 244.

Upon the facts found, the decision appears to be supported by principles laid down by the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, but, so far as the application of the state constitution is concerned, the ultimate determination of the validity of the statute necessarily rests with that court. Further, a change in circumstances may create a *179 situation different from that to which the opinion below was addressed.

In order to prevent the possibility that the decree may .operate injuriously in the future, the decree will be modified by providing that the members of the State Tax Commission, or that Commission, may apply at any time to the court below, by bill or otherwise, as they may be advised, for a further order or decree, in case it shall appear that the statute has been sustained by the state court as valid under the state constitution, or that by reason of a change in circumstances the statute may be regarded as imposing a valid tax. See Minnesota Rate Cases, 230 U.S. 352, at p. 473.

Decree modified as stated in the-opinion and, as modified, affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.