FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   1276   1277   1278   1279   1280   1281   1282   1283   1284   1285   1286   1287   1288   1289   1290   1291   1292   1293   1294   1295   1296   1297   1298   1299   1300  
1301   1302   1303   1304   1305   1306   1307   1308   1309   1310   1311   1312   1313   1314   1315   1316   1317   1318   1319   1320   1321   1322   1323   1324   1325   >>   >|  
. [537] Adams Express Co. _v._ Ohio State Auditor, 165 U.S. 194 (1897). [538] Alpha Portland Cement Co. _v._ Massachusetts, 268 U.S. 203 (1925). [539] Cream of Wheat Co. _v._ Grand Forks County, 253 U.S. 325 (1920). [540] Newark Fire Ins. Co. _v._ State Board, 307 U.S. 313, 318, 324 (1939). Although the eight judges affirming this tax were not in agreement as to the reasons to be assigned in justification of this result, the holding appears to be in line with the dictum uttered by the late Chief Justice Stone in Curry _v._ McCanless (307 U.S. at 368) to the effect that the taxation of a corporation by a State where it does business, measured by the value of the intangibles used in its business there, does not preclude the State of incorporation from imposing a tax measured by all its intangibles. [541] Delaware L. & W.R. Co. _v._ Pennsylvania, 198 U.S. 341 (1905). [542] Louisville & J. Ferry Co. _v._ Kentucky, 188 U.S. 385 (1903). [543] Kansas City Ry. _v._ Kansas, 240 U.S. 227 (1916); Kansas City, M. & B.R. Co. _v._ Stiles, 242 U.S. 111 (1916). [544] Schwab _v._ Richardson, 263 U.S. 88 (1923). [545] Western U. Teleg. Co. _v._ Kansas ex rel. Coleman, 216 U.S. 1 (1910); Pullman Co. _v._ Kansas ex rel. Coleman, 216 U.S. 56 (1910); Looney _v._ Crane Co., 245 U.S. 178 (1917); International Paper Co. _v._ Massachusetts, 246 U.S. 135 (1918). [546] Cudahy Packing Co. _v._ Hinkle, 278 U.S. 460 (1929). [547] St. Louis S.W.R. Co. _v._ Arkansas ex rel. Norwood, 235 U.S. 350 (1914). [548] Atlantic Refining Co. _v._ Virginia, 302 U.S. 22 (1937). [549] American Mfg Co. _v._ St. Louis, 250 U.S. 459 (1919). Nor does a State license tax on the production of electricity violate the due process clause because it may be necessary, to ascertain, as an element in its computation, the amounts delivered in another jurisdiction.--Utah Power & Light Co. _v._ Pfost, 286 U.S. 165 (1932). [550] James _v._ Dravo Contracting Co. 302 U.S. 134 (1937). [551] Union Refrigerator Transit Co. _v._ Kentucky, 199 U.S. 194 (1905). [552] Southern Pacific Co. _v._ Kentucky, 222 U.S. 63 (1911). [553] Old Dominion Steamship Co. _v._ Virginia, 198 U.S. 299 (1905). [554] 199 U.S. 194 (1905). [555] Pullman's Palace Car Co. _v._ Pennsylvania, 141 U.S. 18 (1891). [556] Northwest Airlines _v._ Minnesota, 322 U.S. 292, 294-297, 307 (1944).--The case was said to be governed by New York Central Railroad _v._ Miller, 202 U.S. 584, 5
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   1276   1277   1278   1279   1280   1281   1282   1283   1284   1285   1286   1287   1288   1289   1290   1291   1292   1293   1294   1295   1296   1297   1298   1299   1300  
1301   1302   1303   1304   1305   1306   1307   1308   1309   1310   1311   1312   1313   1314   1315   1316   1317   1318   1319   1320   1321   1322   1323   1324   1325   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Kansas

 

Kentucky

 
intangibles
 

Virginia

 

Pennsylvania

 

business

 

measured

 
Coleman
 

Massachusetts

 

Pullman


electricity

 

production

 

ascertain

 

element

 
process
 

clause

 

violate

 

American

 

Arkansas

 

Norwood


Cudahy

 

Packing

 
Hinkle
 
computation
 
Atlantic
 

Refining

 
license
 

Airlines

 
Northwest
 
Minnesota

Palace
 

Railroad

 
Central
 
Miller
 

governed

 

Contracting

 
delivered
 
jurisdiction
 

Steamship

 
Dominion

Pacific

 

Refrigerator

 

Transit

 

Southern

 

amounts

 

affirming

 
agreement
 

reasons

 
assigned
 

judges