Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

569 F.2d 893

Docket No. 77-2801

Gray-Taylor, Inc. v. Harris County

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided March 17, 1978.

Rehearing Denied April 24, 1978.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1978-03-17

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently December 1979

5 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · Burford v. Sun Oil Co. · Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Huffman

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1978-03-17

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Summary Calendar.*

¶2John D. Townsend, Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant.

¶3Anthony D. Sheppard, Asst. County Atty., Joe Resweber, County Atty., Houston, Tex., for Gauthier Resweber.

¶4Before AINSWORTH, MORGAN and GEE, Circuit Judges.

¶6PER CURIAM:

¶7Gray-Taylor, Inc. sued Harris County, Texas, and various officials thereof, claiming that the property taxation scheme of the county is so discriminatory about what property is assessed as to violate not only the Constitution and laws of Texas but the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The complaint pleads a class action and seeks an injunction against the defendants' implementing the tax system.

¶8The district court determined that there is pending in state court a suit by a different plaintiff against the same defendants as in the case at bar and seeking the same class-action injunctive relief. The district court abstained from reaching the merits of the suit and dismissed the case. We conclude the district court properly abstained to avoid a needless conflict between the federal courts and the State of Texas in the administration of its internal affairs. See, Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315, 63 S.Ct. 1098, 87 L.Ed. 1424 (1943). See, also, Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Co. v. Huffman, 319 U.S. 293, 300-301, 63 S.Ct. 1070, 87 L.Ed. 1407 (1943), (abstention proper in suit for declaratory judgment against a state taxation statute).

¶9The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

/569/f2d/893 · .json · Public domain