UNITED STATES
v.
CITY OF NEW YORK
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A federal court should not consider the validity of a state or municipal tax when state courts are better suited to decide such issues.
The United States sought an injunction in federal court against the collection of a state/city tax. The district court had jurisdiction, and the City …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Abstention Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Circuit Judge.
In United States v. Woodworth, 2 Cir., 170 F. 2d 1019, we held that 28 U.S. C.A. § 1341 does not bar a suit in the federal courts by the United States to obtain an injunction against the collection of a state or city tax. Accordingly, the district court had jurisdiction of the subject matter. As the United States could have instituted a separate suit seeking the relief sought by its petition, we treat the filing of that petition as such a suit. True, in such a suit, it would have been necessary to serve the City. But the City, already a party to the condemnation proceedings, did not object, in the district court, to lack of new service upon it. Consequently, that court had jurisdiction of the “person” of the City.
However, the existence of jurisdiction is not enough. Whether the tax is valid is by no means clear under the state-court decisions.1 The question of the validity of a state or municipal tax is one which the state courts are peculiarly fitted to answer and which, therefore, a federal court should not consider.2 See Matthews v. Rodgers, 284 U.S. 521, 52 S.Ct. 217, 76 L.Ed. 447; Stratton v. St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co., 284 U.S. 530, 52 S.Ct. 222, 76 L.Ed. 465; Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Huffman, 319 U.S. 293, 63 S.Ct. 1070, 87 L.Ed. 1407; Meredith v. Winter Haven, 320 U.S. 228, at page 235, 64 S.Ct. 7, 88 L.Ed. 9.
It is not denied by the United States that, after the levy of the taxes, a wholly adequate remedy was open to it, directly or through Lebanon, in the state courts. Whether, because of delay, that remedy is not now available is not material, for the United States should never have sought relief in a federal court.
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the order of August 26, 1948, and direct the dismissal of the petition.
See Pratt Institute v. New York, 183 N.Y. 151, 75 N.E. 1119, 5 Ann.Cas. 198; People ex rel. Unity Congregational Society v. Mills, 189 Misc. 774, 71 N.Y.S. 2d 873; Matter of Syracuse Young Men’s Christian Association, 126 Misc. 431, 213 N.Y.S. 35; Congregation Emanu-El v. City of New York, 150 Misc. 657, 270 N.Y.S. 6, affirmed 243 App.Div. 692, 277 N.Y.S. 955.
The situation would be different, if the state courts had previously answered that question unequivocally.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mottolese v. Kaufman, 176 F.2d 301 (2d Cir. 1949)
-
United States & Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Bureau OF Revenue OF State OF NEW Mexico, 291 F.2d 677 (10th Cir. 1961)
-
Fed. Reserve Bank OF Boston v. Comm'r OF Corps. & Taxation OF the Commonwealth OF Mass., 499 F.2d 60 (1st Cir. 1974)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Meredith v. Winter Haven, 320 U.S. 228 (U.S. 1943)
- Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Huffman, 319 U.S. 293 (U.S. 1943)
- Matthews v. Rodgers, 284 U.S. 521 (U.S. 1932)
- Stratton v. ST. Louis Sw. Ry. Co., 284 U.S. 530 (U.S. 1932)
- United States v. Woodworth, 170 F.2d 1019 (2d Cir. 1948)