# Conlen Grain & Mercantile, Inc. v. Texas Grain Sorghum Producers Board

> Texas Supreme Court · January 15, 1975 · 18 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 170

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9767561

## Case

- **Full name:** CONLEN GRAIN AND MERCANTILE, INC., Et Al., Appellants, v. TEXAS GRAIN SORGHUM PRODUCERS BOARD, Appellee
- **Court:** Texas Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 15, 1975
- **Citations:** 18 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 170; 519 S.W.2d 620; 1975 Tex. LEXIS 206
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Daniel
- **Judges:** Walker, McGee, Denton, Johnson, Daniel
- **Cited by:** 38 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9767561

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the statute at issue imposed a "tax" because it mandated that grain sorghum processors collect fees from producers for every .5 ton of grain produced
- finding that an occupation tax is “a form of excise tax imposed upon a person [or entity] for the privilege of carrying on a business, trade or occupation”
- concluding that government charge on businesses that produce agricultural commodity was occupation tax rather than fee
- noting that party can challenge constitutionality of occupation tax on basis that tax fails to allocate 25% of revenue to public schools

## Opinion text

DANIEL, Justice
(dissenting).
I would hold that the statute in question, as explained in paragraphs two through four of the majority opinion, provides for an assessment (as distinguished from a tax) voluntarily levied by the producers of the commodity “upon themselves” for their own benefit, and that its essential nature as a voluntary assessment was not changed by the amendment providing for a system of initial mandatory payment of assessments so long as prompt refunds are available to those who do not desire to participate in supporting the program. Accordingly, I disagree with the majority opinion and respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9767561. Public record. Not legal advice.