Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Miller & Lux, Inc. v. Sacramento & San Joaquin Drainage District

Miller & Lux, Inc. v. Sacramento & San Joaquin Drainage Dist., 256 U.S. 129 (1921)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1921-04-11
Topic
general

*130 Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the court. This cause is here upon writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State of California. 182 California, 252. There is also an application for certiorari, but under the settled practice no adequate grounds therefor are shown. By the Act of May 26, 1913, effective August 10, 1913 (Stats. 1913, p. 252), the legislature of California undertook to create the Sacramento and San Joaquin Drainage District, including 1,725,553 acres along the general course of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, and particularly an extensive area south of Stockton.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Miller & Lux, Inc. v. Sacramento & San Joaquin Drainage District. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
37 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Constitutional Law — Fourteenth Amendment — Drainage District Assessments The fact that particular lands included in a drainage district will receive no direct benefits is not, standing alone, sufficient to exempt them from assessment under the Fourteenth Amendment. 256 U.S. at 130
  2. Constitutional Law — Due Process In the absence of flagrant abuse or purely arbitrary action, a State may establish drainage districts and tax the lands therein for local improvements, and no such lands may escape liability for the assessment solely because they will not receive direct benefits. 256 U.S. at 130 (citing Houck v. Little River Drainage District, 239 U.S. 254)
  3. Constitutional Law — Due Process A claim that a drainage district assessment violates the Fourteenth Amendment on the ground that the legislature acted arbitrarily requires allegations sufficient to raise the issue of arbitrary legislative action; general allegations that the assessed lands will receive no benefits do not suffice. 256 U.S. at 130 (citing Myles Salt Co. v. Iberia Drainage District, 239 U.S. 478)
MILLER LUXv. SACRAMENTO DRAINAGE DIST.,256 U.S. 129(1921)
41 S.Ct. 404
MILLER LUX, INCORPORATED,v. SACRAMENTO SAN JOAQUIN DRAINAGE DISTRICT.
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
No. 347.
Argued March 9, 10, 1921.
Decided April 11, 1921.
That particular lands included in a drainage district will receive no direct benefits is clearly notper seenough to exempt them, under the Fourteenth Amendment, from assessment. P. 130.Houckv.Little River Drainage District,239 U.S. 254. Writ of error to review182 Cal. 252, dismissed; petition for a writ of certiorari denied.
THE case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. Edward F. Treadwellfor plaintiff in error.Mr. Charles S. Peery, with whomMr. Jeremiah F. Sullivanwas on the brief, for defendant in error.Page 130
MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the court.
This cause is here upon writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State of California.182 Cal. 252. There is also an application for certiorari, but under the settled practice no adequate grounds therefor are shown.

By the Act of May 26, 1913, effective August 10, 1913 (Stats. 1913, p. 252), the legislature of California undertook to create the Sacramento and San Joaquin Drainage District, including 1,725,553 acres along the general course of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, and particularly an extensive area south of Stockton. The Reclamation Board, appointed as directed by the statute, levied a tax of $250,000 for general preliminary expenses incidental to the project and appointed assessors to apportion the same. Certain of plaintiff in error's lands lying south of Stockton were assessed at five cents per acre, and to annul this assessment it began the present proceeding. In support of the writ of error reliance is placed upon the contention that, as construed by the state courts, the Act of 1913 denies plaintiff in error opportunity to show that its lands will receive no special or direct benefits from the proposed works, and therefore conflicts with the Fourteenth Amendment. But we think that when the writ was sued out (May, 1920) this claim had already become too unsubstantial to support our jurisdiction as defined by the Act of September 6, 1916, c. 448,39 Stat. 726. SinceHouckv.Little River Drainage District, (1915)239 U.S. 254, the doctrine has been definitely settled that in the absence of flagrant abuse or purely arbitrary action a State may establish drainage districts and tax lands therein for local improvements, and that none of such lands may escape liability solely because they will not receive direct benefits. The allegations of the originalPage 131complaint are wholly insufficient to raise the issue in respect of arbitrary legislative action presented byMyles Salt Co. v.Iberia Drainage District,239 U.S. 478.The petition for certiorari is denied and the writ of erroris dismissed.