GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CO.
v.
FISHER ET AL.
GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CO.
FISHER ET AL.
295 U.S. 715
Supreme Court of the United States (1935)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam:
The appeal herein is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. Trinityfarm Co. v. Grosjean, 291 U. S. 466, 472; Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, 269 U. S. 514; Lucas v. Howard, 280 U. S. 526; Lucas v. Reed, 281 U. S. 699; Alward v. Johnson, 282 U. S. 509, 514; Willcuts v. Bunn, 282 U. S. 224, et seq.; Baltimore Shipbuilding Co. v. Baltimore, 195 U. S. 375, 382.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134 (U.S. 1937)…218; Graysburg Oil Co. v. Texas, 278 U. S. 582; 3 S. W. (2d) 427. Compare Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, 440. Graves v. Texas Company, 298 U. S. 393. Trinityfarm Construction Co. v. Grosjean, 291 U. S. 466. General Construction Co. v. Fisher, 295 U. S. 715; 149 Ore. 84; 39 P. (2d) 358; Burnet v. A. T. Jergins Trust, 288 U. S. 508. Alward v. Johnson, 282 U. S. 509. Osborn v. Bank, 9 Wheat. 738, 867. In this brief the Solicitor General stated that figured upon the estimated purchases of the Governmen…1 / 2
-
Atkinson v. State Tax Comm'n of Or., 303 U.S. 20 (U.S. 1938)…appeal. With respect to the contention that the state law lays an unconstitutional burden upon the Federal Government, the case is controlled by our previous decisions. Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, 269 U. S. 514; General Construction Co. v. Fisher, 295 U. S. 715; James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U. S. 134; Silas Mason Co. v. Tax Commission, 302 U. S. 186. In the two cases last mentioned the tax which was upheld was upon the gross income of the contractors. In Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, supra, and Genera…
-
E. E. Morgan Co., Inc. v. Ark. for use & benefit of Phillips Cnty., 314 U.S. 571 (U.S. 1941)…iam: The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. (1) Stewart & Co. v. Sadrakula, 309 U. S. 94, 105; James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U. S. 134, 149; General Construction Co. v. Fisher, 295 U. S. 715; Trinityfarm Construction Co. v. Grosjean, 291 U. S. 466, 472; (2) International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 579, 588- [*572] 89; Natural Gas Co. v. Slattery, 302 U. S. 300, 306-7. Mr. Wm. M. Hall for appellant. Mr. Leo J. Mundt for ap-pe…
Authorities Cited
- Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, 269 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1926)
- Baltimore Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Baltimore, 195 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1904)
- Alward v. Johnson, 282 U.S. 509 (U.S. 1931)
- Trinityfarm Constr. Co. v. Grosjean, 291 U.S. 466 (U.S. 1934)
- Anglo & London - Paris Nat'l Bank v. Consol. Nat'l Bank, 280 U.S. 526 (U.S. 1929)
- Lucas v. Howard, 280 U.S. 526 (U.S. 1929)
- Sherman v. United States, 281 U.S. 699 (U.S. 1930)
- Ivey v. Keeling, 281 U.S. 699 (U.S. 1930)