State v. Inland Empire Refineries, Inc.
Washington Supreme Court
1DissentBlake, C. J.
(dissenting) — I dissent. As I view it, there is only one ground of the attack on the constitutionality of chapter 186, Laws of 1939, that has a semblance of validity. That is the exemption allowed under § 15, subd. (e), upon the “withdrawal, sale or distribution by a distributor of all petroleum products derived from the refining within this state of crude petroleum or crude oil.” (Italics mine.) Obviously, this is an unconstitutional discrimination in favor of persons and corporations engaged in refining petroleum and crude oil in this state. But it does not follow that the entire act must…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited18 opinions
- UTAH POWER & LIGHT CO. v. PFOST, COMMISSIONER OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Ingels v. RileyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
- Appeal of FoxSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
- Bacon Service Corporation v. Huss.California Supreme Court · 1926
- State ex rel. Dillon v. County CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1906
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.