Standard Oil Co. v. City of Marysville

1929-05-20
Share:

Headline: City rule requiring large gasoline and kerosene storage tanks to be buried is upheld, allowing municipalities to force dealers to bury or move tanks to protect neighborhood safety.

Holding:

Real World Impact:
  • Allows cities to require underground storage for large fuel tanks.
  • Forces dealers to bury or relocate large tanks or face daily fines.
Topics: fuel storage, local safety rules, city ordinances, property and business regulation

Summary

Background

The dispute involved the City of Marysville’s ordinance requiring all tanks used for storing petroleum or other flammable liquids to be buried at least three feet underground, with small-tank exceptions and a $25 daily fine for violations. The challengers are local dealers who for many years operated two large above-ground tanks of about 12,000 gallons each and said forcing burial would impose heavy expense and unlawfully take their property.

Reasoning

The Court focused on whether the city reasonably acted to protect public safety. A court-appointed master found that large quantities of gasoline and kerosene are highly flammable, past local fires had caused deaths and property loss, underground tanks in the area had operated successfully, underground storage reduces certain risks (like lightning and static), and insurance rates are lower for buried tanks. The Court emphasized that when a safety regulation is within the city’s authority, questions about its wisdom belong to local lawmakers. Applying those factual findings, the Court concluded the ordinance was not arbitrary and was a permissible exercise of the city’s police power (its authority to protect public safety), so the law stands.

Real world impact

The ruling lets cities require large fuel tanks to be buried or forces businesses to move storage outside city limits. Dealers who currently keep large above-ground tanks in town must either comply, relocate, or risk fines. The decision upholds broad local authority to adopt safety rules even when those rules are burdensome to particular businesses.

Ask about this case

Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).

What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?

How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?

What are the practical implications of this ruling?

Related Cases