MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY

v.

MARTIN WOODWARD

Citator

Cited By

• Wilmette Park Dist. v. Campbell, 338 U.S. 411 (U.S. 1949)
  …dmission and not as a rental charge. A similar result must obtain when payment is prerequisite, as it was at petitioner’s beach, to both admission to and use of a specific area. Chimney Rock Co. v. United States, 63 Ct. Cl. 660 (1927), cert. denied, 275 U. S. 552 (1927); Twin Falls Natatorium v. United States, 22 F. 2d 308 (D. Idaho, 1927).10 The trial court, in allowing judgment for petitioner in view of the use made of the beach, considered the fee a “use tax.” But if there is no tax exemption for admissi…
• Florio v. Powder Power Tool Corp., 248 F.2d 367 (3d Cir. 1957)
  …ch clearly fell within the statutory requirements of a series of acts for pecuniary benefit. See Dufek v. Roux Distributing Co., D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1954, 125 F.Supp. 716; Cone v. New Britain Machine Co., 6 Cir., 1927, 20 F. 2d 593, certiorari denied 1927, 275 U.S. 552, 48 S.Ct. 115, 72 L.Ed. 421, and Case v. Mills Novelty Co., 1940, 187 Miss. 6-73, 193 So. 625, 126 A.L.R. 1102. Section 1011, subd. C. provides that the entry of a foreign corporation into Pennsylvania and the performance of a [*373] single act wit…