Shipman v. DuPre
Annotate this Case
339 U.S. 321 (1950)
U.S. Supreme Court
Shipman v. DuPre, 339 U.S. 321 (1950)
Shipman v. DuPre
Decided April 24, 1950
339 U.S. 321
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In this case, a three-judge federal district court erred in ruling on the merits of a suit to restrain enforcement of a state statute on the ground of its invalidity under the Federal Constitution when it did not appear that the statute had been construed by the state courts; but the federal court should retain jurisdiction pending a reasonable time to afford an opportunity for complainants to obtain such a construction. Pp. 339 U. S. 321-322.
88 F.Supp. 482, judgment vacated.
Appellants' application for a declaratory judgment and injunction, on the ground of the alleged invalidity under the Federal Constitution of certain sections of South Carolina statutes regulating the fisheries and shrimping industry, was dismissed on the merits by a three-judge federal district court. 88 F.Supp. 482. On appeal to this Court, the judgment is vacated and the cause is remanded, p. 339 U. S. 322.
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, 327 U. S. 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.
Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.