ASHTON J. MOUTON, COLLECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF LOUISIANA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
SINCLAIR OIL AND GAS COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
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.
The court held that its prior ruling in Mississippi River Fuel Corporation v. Cocreham is dispositive of all legal contentions raised by the Collector.
The Louisiana Collector of Revenue sued Sinclair Oil and Gas Company for state severance taxes. Sinclair removed the case to federal court and obtaine…
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 28 U.S.C. § 1446 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
■ This suit was originally filed by the Louisiana Collector of Revenue in a Louisiana state court to collect certain state severance taxes claimed to be due by defendant Sinclair Oil and Gas Company. Sinclair removed the suit to the federal district court and the Collector’s motion to remand for lack of jurisdiction was denied. Sinclair’s motion for summary judgment based on our prior holding in Mississippi River Fuel Corporation v. Cocreham, 5 Cir., 1967, 382 F. 2d 929, rehearing denied, 1968, 390 F. 2d 34, cert. denied, Mouton v. Mississippi River Fuel Corp., 390 U.S. 1015, 88 S.Ct. 1264, 20 L.Ed.2d 164 (1968), was granted and the Collector of Revenue has appealed.
All of the legal contentions raised by the Collector in this case have heretofore been considered and ruled on adversely to him by this Court in the Mississippi River Fuel case. (See our per curiam decision released this day in the companion cases of Shell Oil Co. v. Mouton, No. 26493, and Mouton v. Shell Oil Co., No. 26730, 410 F. 2d 715)
Nor is there any merit in the Collector’s contention that this suit was improperly removed from the Louisiana state court to the federal district court since it is apparent that the federal court has jurisdiction both under diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, in that the Collector is acting unconstitutionally and therefore in an individual capacity and not as the official representative of the State of Louisiana, and because a federal question is presented, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, in that the Collector is attempting to collect severance taxes on oil and gas produced from a federal military enclave, Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana, on which the United States has exclusive jurisdiction as provided by Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, of the United States' Constitution. See Mississippi River Fuel Corporation, 382 F. 2d at 934, citing Georgia R. R. & Banking Co. v. Redwine, 342 U.S. 299, 72 S.Ct. 321, 96 L.Ed. 335 (1952), and Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), in support thereof. It was proper, under 28 U.S.C. § 1446, to consider the stipulation of fact, together with the allegations of the complaint, on the petition of the Collector for removal.
Being of the opinion, therefore, that our holding in Mississippi River Fuel, supra, is conclusive as to all the legal issues presented in this ease, the judgment appealed from is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nuclear Eng'g Co. v. Scott, 660 F.2d 241 (7th Cir. 1981)
-
Shell OIL Co. v. Ashton J. Mouton, 410 F.2d 715 (5th Cir. 1969)
Authorities Cited
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1908)
- Ga. R.R. & Banking Co. v. Redwine, 342 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1952)
- Sanders v. Bonomi (Association of the Bar of the City of N.Y.), 390 U.S. 1015 (U.S. 1968)
- Mouton v. Tex. Gas Exploration Corp., 390 U.S. 1015 (U.S. 1968)
- Miss. River Fuel Corp. v. Cocreham, 382 F.2d 929 (5th Cir. 1967)
- Shell OIL Co. v. Ashton J. Mouton, 410 F.2d 715 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Miss. River Fuel Corp. v. Cocreham, 390 F.2d 34 (5th Cir. 1968)