Shipman v. DuPre

U.S.

Court: Supreme Court of the United States

Citations: 339 U.S. 321, 94 L. Ed. 2d 877, 70 S. Ct. 640, 1950 U.S. LEXIS 2071, SCDB 1949-067

Decision Date: 4/24/1950

Docket Number: No. 689

Jurisdiction: U.S.

Bluebook Citation: Shipman v. DuPre, 339 U.S. 321, 94 L. Ed. 2d 877, 70 S. Ct. 640, 1950 U.S. LEXIS 2071, SCDB 1949-067 (1950)

More Cases: U.S. decisions from 1950

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Highly CitedTop 5% most-cited · cited by 45 decisions

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1950s1960s1970s

Courts citing this case

U.S.5

4th Cir.4

W.D. Pa.3

5th Cir.2

D. Del.2

E.D. Tenn.2

Most recently cited by10

1977Sovereign News Co. v. Falke N.D. Ohio
1977Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion Tex. Att'y Gen.
1973Lim v. Andrukiewicz D.R.I.
1972Independent Tape Merchant's Ass'n v. Creamer M.D. Pa.
1968Barrows v. Reddin C.D. Cal.
1967Zwickler v. Koota U.S.
1967DuVall v. Moore N.D. Iowa
1967Dodd v. Barnes E.D. Tenn.
1967United Steelworkers of America v. Bagwell 4th Cir.
1966City of Altus v. Carr W.D. Tex.

Cites 2 cases

American Federation of Labor v. Watson
Shipman v. Dupre

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

SHIPMAN et al., trading as SHIPMAN BROTHERS, et al. v. DuPRE et al.

Judges

Mr. Justice Douglas dissents.

Attorneys

Aaron Kravitch, Phyllis Kravitch and Joseph From-berg for appellants.
John M. Daniel, Attorney General of South Carolina, T. C. Callison and R. Hoke Robinson, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellees.

majority 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 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.