Document: 457 U.S. 164 102 S.Ct. 2335 72 L.Ed.2d 755 State of CALIFORNIAv.State TEXAS et al. No. 88, Orig. June 14, 1982. Rehearing Denied Sept. 9, See 458 1131, 103 14. PER CURIAM. 1 In this motion, California seeks leave to file a complaint against Texas under Court's original jurisdiction. The proposed asks us decide whether Howard Hughes was domiciled in or at the time his death. decision about domicile could determine which is entitled levy death taxes on estate. 2 This motion renews one made November 1977. At that time, we denied file. Cali- fornia v. Texas, 437 601, 98 3107, 57 464 (1978). Following suggestion four Justices who concurred estate then sought determination Hughes' by filing an interpleader action 28 U.S.C. § 1335 Federal District Court. for accompanied petition certiorari Cory White, 85, 2325, 694, taxing officials requested review Fifth Circuit holding Interpleader Act provided jurisdictional basis resolving dispute. 3 We granted 452 904, 101 3028, 69 404 (1981), and today have held Act, 1335, does not give federal district court jurisdiction resolve inconsistent tax claims two States. U.S., 91, S.Ct., 2329. reached because suit barred Eleventh Amendment Worcester County Trust Co. Riley, 302 292, 58 185, 82 L.Ed.d 268 (1937). now also conclude California's should be granted. 4 First, bill states "controversy" between within exclusive Court 1251(a). It undisputed each State's authority impose intangibles owned decedent depends decedent's having been domiciliary State. Also, it law individual has but domicile. Thus only taxes; outcome would privileged tax. other from doing so. apparent, therefore, are asserting undeniably adversaries action. 5 Moreover, its Memorandum Support Motion File Bill Complaint 6, asserts: 6 "The effective rate all amounts excess $400,000 24% (see CAL.REV. & TAX CODE 13406(g)); (including so-called 'pick-up tax') exceeding $1,000,000 approximately 16% TEX. ANN. ARTS. 14.05, 14.12); $10,000,000 77%, less credit state 26 §§ 2001, 2011). combined marginal therefore 101%." (Footnote omitted). 7 adds interest unpaid will further deplete Although these allegations proved, they sufficient Florida, 306 398, 59 563, 83 L.Ed. 817 (1939), characterize case as States meaning 1251(a).1 8 supra, Court, raising issue sua sponte, had over "brought true rival upon estate." 401, 565. None reduced judgments, conceded insufficient satisfy total amount claimed. compared nature interpleader, permits plaintiff threatened with claimants same debt legal duty bring before institution independent suits. On analogy, concluded: 9 "When, appropriate procedure, possessing equity powers . asked prevent loss might otherwise result prosecution mutually claims, justiciable presented adjudication recognized subject procedure inherited England, 'case' 'controversy,' Constitutional provision; when prosecuted states, claimants, risk shown real substantial, conferred Judiciary Article." Id., 407-408, 568. 10 As Justice Stewart wrote first petitioned dispute estate: facts alleged indistinguishable material respects those based Florida." 606, 3110 (concurring opinion). agree.2 Thus, controversy our 11 Second, exercise case. A case, course, require imposed prudential equitable limitations explained Illinois City Milwaukee, 406 93-94, 92 1385, 1387-1388, 31 712 (1972): 12 "We construe 1251(a)(1), do Art. III, 2, cl.2, honor make obligatory cases. And question what concerns, seriousness dignity claim; yet beyond necessarily involves availability another forum where there named parties, issues tendered may litigated, relief had. incline sparing use so increasing duties appellate docket suffer." 13 decided seemed several Members statutory obviate need BRENNAN, example, explained: 14 "If all, attach until can possibly able obtain conflicting adjudications That showing since well possible judgment Statute, United court, binding both Texas. event, precondition lacking. Accordingly, I deny least such cannot brought." 601-602, 3107-3108. 15 Our White brought. met. 16 There were uncertainties affected earlier motion. urged ripe pending claim Medical Institute "lost will" left entire contention "Mormon Will" valid. jury rejected Will," Nevada Supreme Probate will." Another changed circumstance expiration conditional settlement agreement argued allegedly collusive agreement, controversy. 17 properly invoked grant complaint. defendants shall 60 days answer. 18 ordered. 19 POWELL, whom MARSHALL, REHNQUIST, STEVENS join, dissenting. 20 89, 2328, reaffirms (1937), "inconsistent determinations courts taxpayer [do] raise substantial constitutional question." Under no bar ground he domiciliary. 21 Having reaffirmed County, concludes "California [the action]." Ante, 165. But own premises support conclusion. If legally estate, them arise if money judgments and, further, prove claims. Yet more clear than 1978, unanimously (1978), situation ever occur. assumptions, States, consideration Original. 22 discomfited logic position, argues here "no speculative," ante, 166, n. 1, (1939). persuasively 1978 inescapable Florida wrongly decided. 611-612, 3110, 3113-3114 (Stewart, J., concurring). mere possibility domicile, resulting still remote estate's being competing simply rise sense. necessity invoke judicial power stand profit some personal remains III requirement. ignore requirement without overstepping assigned role system adjudicating actual cases controversies." Simon Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 26, 39, 96 1917, 1924, 48 450 (1976). Valley Forge Christian College Americans Separation Church State, 454 464, 472, 752, 758, 70 700 (1982); Warth Seldin, 422 490, 508, 95 2197, 2210, 45 343 (1975). 23 Nor base finding "analogy" "a interpleader." 167. stakeholder "plaintiff." 1335. notified "claimants," normally standing litigate validity presence controversies satisfies "case controversy" III. merely provides convenient resolution single forum. thus irrelevant independently "between" asserts demonstrated prerequisite "threatened injury" "serious magnitude imminent." Brief Opposition Leave quoting Alabama Arizona, 291 286, 54 399, 78 798 (1934). explains value litigation fully potential even valuation. however, required "[t]he constitutionally subjected assessments right complainant collect defeated one." 410, 569. speculative ones there. recognized, suit, "[a] await suits; enough shows asserted consequent substantial." 406, 567. present Despite so, decline overrule Florida. idiosyncratic pattern life spent much many business activities He was, born long continued mailing address sometimes stated Indeed, probate proceedings already found administrator timely perfected appeal judgment. Respondent Lummis O.T.1981, 80-1556, p. 5. Civil Appeals stayed 7.

Category: 8