Shipman v. DuPre

Supreme Court

Shipman v. DuPre

339 U.S. 321, 70 S. Ct. 640, 94 L. Ed. 2d 877, 1950 U.S. LEXIS 2071

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedJune 5, 1950

Docket689

StatusPublished

Cited by79 cases

This text of 339 U.S. 321 (Shipman v. DuPre) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Shipman v. DuPre, 339 U.S. 321, 70 S. Ct. 640, 94 L. Ed. 2d 877, 1950 U.S. LEXIS 2071 (1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellants sought a declaratory judgment that certain sections of the South Carolina statute regulating the fisheries and shrimping industry were unconstitutional, and interlocutory and permanent injunctions restraining the state officials from carrying out those provisions. The *322 statutory three-judge District Court assumed jurisdiction, decided the issues on the merits, and dismissed the complaint. 88 F. Supp. 482. From the papers submitted on appeal, it does not appear that the statutory sections in question have as yet been construed by the state courts. We are therefore of opinion that the District Court erred in disposing of the complaint on the merits. See American Federation of Labor v. Watson, 327 U. S. 582, 595-599.

The judgment of the District Court is vacated and the cause is remanded to that court with directions to retain jurisdiction of the complaint for a reasonable time, to afford appellants an opportunity to obtain, by appropriate proceedings, a construction by the state court of the statutory provisions involved.

Mr. Justice Douglas dissents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Appellants sought a declaratory judgment that certain sections of the South Carolina statute regulating the fisheries and shrimping industry were unconstitutional, and interlocutory and permanent injunctions restraining the state officials from carrying out those provisions. The *322 statutory three-judge District Court assumed jurisdiction, decided the issues on the merits, and dismissed the complaint. 88 F. Supp. 482. From the papers submitted on appeal, it does not appear that the statutory sections in question have as yet been construed by the state courts. We are therefore of opinion that the District Court erred in disposing of the complaint on the merits. See American Federation of Labor v. Watson, 327 U. S. 582, 595-599.

The judgment of the District Court is vacated and the cause is remanded to that court with directions to retain jurisdiction of the complaint for a reasonable time, to afford appellants an opportunity to obtain, by appropriate proceedings, a construction by the state court of the statutory provisions involved.

Mr. Justice Douglas dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

339 U.S. 321, 70 S. Ct. 640, 94 L. Ed. 2d 877, 1950 U.S. LEXIS 2071, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shipman-v-dupre-scotus-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack