W. T. CARTER & BROS. ET AL.
v.
SHORT ET AL.
W. T. CARTER & BROS. ET AL.
SHORT ET AL.
308 U.S. 513
Supreme Court of the United States (1939)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam:
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appéal is dismissed for want of a properly presented substantial federal question. (1) Godchaux Co. v. Estopinal, 251 U. S. 179; Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 261 U. S. 114, 117; Herndon v. Georgia, 295 U. S. 441, 443; (2) Compare Litchfield v. Register, 9 Wall. 575, 577-578; Minnesota v. Lane, 247 U. S. 243, 250; Lane v. Darling ton, 249 U. S. 331, 333.
Messrs. John P. Bullington and Dillon Anderson for appellants. Messrs. H. Grady Chandler and Henry H. -Brooks for appellees.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dorsett v. Overstreet, 154 Fla. 566 (Fla. 1944)…tra-state for the purpose of resale, Woodruff v. Parham, supra (8 Wall. 123, 131); Hinson v. Lott, 8 Wall. 148; Banker Bros. v. Pennsylvania; supra, (222 U.S. 210); Wiloil Corp. v. Pennsylvania, supra, (294 U.S. 169) : Graybar Electric Co. v. Curry, 308 U. S. 513, 238 Ala. 116; 189 So. 186, and when the extra-state seller has shipped them into the taxing state for sale there. Hinson v. Lott, supra (8 Wall. 148); Sonneborn Bros. v. Cureton, 262 U. S. 506. It has likewise sustained a fixed-sum license tax impo…
-
McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co., 309 U.S. 33 (U.S. 1940)…oth when the local seller has purchased the goods extra-state for the purpose of resale, Woodruff v. Parham, supra; Hinson v. Lott, 8 Wall. 148; Banker Bros. v. Pennsylvania, supra; Wiloil Corp. v. Pennsylvania, supra; Graybar Electric Co. v. Curry, 308 U. S. 513; 238 Ala. 116; 189 So. 186, and when the extra-state seller has shipped them into the taxing state for sale there. Hinson v. Lott, supra; Sonneborn Bros. v. Cureton, 262 U. S. 506. It has likewise sustained a fixed-sum license tax imposed on the age…
-
Nelson v. Sears, 312 U.S. 359 (U.S. 1941)…. v. [*370] O’Connor, 223 U. S. 280, 285; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Foster, 247 U. S. 105, 114; Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Commission, 271 U. S. 583, 593. Compare Wiloil Corporation v. Pennsylvania, 294 U. S. 169; Graybar Electric Co. v. Curry, 308 U. S. 513. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Kansas, supra; Crew Levick Co. v. Pennsylvania, 245 U. S. 292. United States v. B. P. Andrews & Co., 207 U. S'. 229; compare Garretson v. Selby, 37 Iowa 529. St. Louis Cotton Compress Co. v. Arkansas, 260 U. S. 346…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 261 U.S. 114 (U.S. 1923)
- Herndon v. Georgia, 295 U.S. 441 (U.S. 1935)
- Godchaux Co. v. Estopinal, 251 U.S. 179 (U.S. 1919)
- Litchfield v. The Register & Receiver, 9 Wall. 575 (U.S. 1869)
- Lane v. Darlington, 249 U.S. 331 (U.S. 1919)
- State of Minn. v. Lane, 247 U.S. 243 (U.S. 1918)