PRIVATE TRUCK COUNCIL OF AMERICA, INC. v. QUINN, 476 U.S. 1129 (1986)
Subscribe to Cases that cite INC. v. QUINN, 476 U.S. 1129
Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/476/1129/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/476/1129/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
PRIVATE TRUCK COUNCIL OF AMERICA, INC. v. QUINN , 476 U.S. 1129 (1986)
476 U.S. 1129
PRIVATE TRUCK COUNCIL OF AMERICA, INC., et al.
v.
Rodney S. QUINN, Secretary of State of Maine, et al.
No. 85-1423
Supreme Court of the United States
May 19, 1986
On petition for writ of
certiorari to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
Justice WHITE, with whom Justice BRENNAN and Justice O'CONNOR join, dissenting.
In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine held that an allegation that a State has violated the Commerce Clause is not cognizable in an action under 42 U.S.C. 1983. 503 A.2d 214 (1986). This decision, while supported by the weight of authority, see, e.g., Consolidated Freightways Corp. v. Kassel, 730 F.2d 1139 (CA8), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 834 (1984), conflicts with the holding in Kennecott Corp. v. Smith, 637 F.2d 181, 186, n. 5 (CA3 1980). I would grant certiorari to resolve this conflict.
This case also presents the question whether persons subjected to an unconstitutional tax, the nonpayment of which is a crime, may bring a refund action under the Fourteenth Amendment if no state refund procedure is available. The Supreme Judicial Court recognized that the Fourteenth Amendment may require a refund of unconstitutional taxes paid under compulsion. See Carpenter v. Shaw, 280 U.S. 363, 369, 123 (1930); Ward v. Board of County Comm'rs, 253 U.S. 17, 24, 422 (1920). However, the court rejected the " implied duress" theory of Atchison, T. & S.F. R. Co. v. O'Connor, 223 U.S. 280, 286, 217 (1912), and held that petitioners have no right of recovery under the Fourteenth Amendment
because they failed to present evidence that the State actually threatened them with arrest or seizure of personal property if they failed to pay the tax in question. Because this holding calls into question the continuing vitality of Atchison, I would grant certiorari on this issue as well.