Ports Petroleum Co., Inc. of Ohio v. Nixon

Summary

The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the Attorney General lacked authority under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act to issue a civil investigative demand to investigate alleged violations of the Motor Fuel Marketing Act. The court concluded that the two statutes operated independently and that below-cost motor-fuel sales prohibited by the Motor Fuel Marketing Act were not an “unfair practice” under the Merchandising Practices Act. Because the CID issue was resolved against the Attorney General, the court held that Ports Petroleum’s constitutional challenges were no longer ripe and reversed the judgment.

Holdings

1. The Attorney General lacked authority under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act to invoke its civil investigative-demand power to investigate the alleged Motor Fuel Marketing Act violation because the two statutes operate independently and the alleged below-cost sale was not an unfair practice under the Merchandising Practices Act.
2. Ports' constitutional challenges were not ripe for adjudication after the court held that the civil investigative demand was unauthorized and no other enforcement effort was shown.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Attorney General had authority under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act to issue a civil investigative demand to investigate a possible violation of the Motor Fuel Marketing Act.
2. Whether the term "unfair practice" in the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act encompasses below-cost motor-fuel sales proscribed by the Motor Fuel Marketing Act.
3. Whether Ports' constitutional challenges to the Motor Fuel Marketing Act remained ripe after the court determined that the civil investigative demand was unauthorized.

Disposition

reversed