DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

v.

MURPHY; AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. DEHART

Citator

Cited By

• Dist. of Columbia v. Murphy, 314 U.S. 441 (U.S. 1941)
  …oth cases were affirmed on review by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. 73 App. D. C. 345, 347, 119 F. 2d 449, 451. The cases were brought here on writs of certiorari because of the importance of the questions involved. 313 U. S. 556. Although the District of Columbia Income Tax Act made “domicile” the fulcrum of the income tax, the first ever imposed in the District, it set forth no definition of that word. To ascertain its meaning we therefore consider the Congressional histo…
• S. Ry. Co. v. Painter, 314 U.S. 155 (U.S. 1941)
  …ee, forbade petitioner from further prosecuting its suit in the Tennessee state court and ordered it to dismiss the state suit. This decree was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 117 F. 2d 100. We brought the case here, 313 U. S. 556, in view of the relation of its jurisdictional problems to those in Toucey v. New York Life Insurance Co. and Phoenix Finance Corp. v. Iowa-Wisconsin Bridge Co., ante, p. 118. The limitations imposed on the power of the federal courts by § 265 of t…
• Beedy v. Dist. of Columbia, 126 F.2d 647 (D.C. Cir. 1942)
  …e announced there in two cases originating under the statute we are now considering.2 These cases, like the Sweeney case, involved domiciliary status of federal employees. They went to the Supreme Court on certiorari. District of Columbia v. Murphy, 313 U.S. 556, 61 S.Ct. 1103, 85 L.Ed. 1517; District of Columbia v. De Hart, 313 U.S. 556, 61 S.Ct. 1104, 85 L.Ed. 1518. The opinion of that Court was delivered in December, 1941.3 The view as to domicile taken by the Supreme Court and the view previously expres…

  ← 1 / 2 →