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

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.

Chat with this case using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this case, check whether it is still good law, and see every case that cites it. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.