Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Morsman Vs. Burnet

Morsman vs Burnet

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1931
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/95511

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
283 U.S. 783
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Morsman

Respondent

Burnet

Excerpt

morsman v. burnet - 283 u.s. 783 (1931) u.s. supreme court morsman v. burnet, 283 u.s. 783 (1931) 283 u.s. 783 edgar m. morsman, jr., administrator of the estate of edgar m. morsman, petitioner, v. david burnet, commissioner of internal revenue. no. 581. supreme court of the united states march 2, 1931 mr. edgar m. morsman, jr., of omaha, neb., for petitioner. the attorney general, for respondent. per curiam. the question in this case is that of the construction of section 302( c) of the revenue act of 1924, c. 234, 43 stat. 253, 304 (26 usca 1094 note), a provision similar to that of section 402(c) of the revenue act of 1918, c. 18, 40 stat. 1057, 1097, which has already been construed by this court, and, in this view, there being no question of the constitutional authority of the congress to impose prosepctively a tax with respect to transfers or tursts of the sort here involved, the judgment of the united states circuit court of appeals for the eighth circuit 44 f.(2d) 902 is reversed upon the authority of may v. heiner, 281 u.s. 238 , 50 s. ct. 286, 67 a. l. r. 1244.

Full Judgment

MORSMAN v. BURNET - 283 U.S. 783 (1931)
U.S. Supreme Court MORSMAN v. BURNET, 283 U.S. 783 (1931)

283 U.S. 783

Edgar M. MORSMAN, Jr., Administrator of the Estate of Edgar M. Morsman, petitioner,
v.
David BURNET, Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
No. 581.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 2, 1931

Mr. Edgar M. Morsman, Jr., of Omaha, Neb., for petitioner.

The Attorney General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The question in this case is that of the construction of section 302( c) of the Revenue Act of 1924, c. 234, 43 Stat. 253, 304 (26 USCA 1094 note), a provision similar to that of section 402(c) of the Revenue Act of 1918, c. 18, 40 Stat. 1057, 1097, which has already been construed by this Court, and, in this view, there being no question of the constitutional authority of the Congress to impose prosepctively a tax with respect to transfers or tursts of the sort here involved, the judgment of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 44 F.(2d) 902 is reversed upon the authority of May v. Heiner, 281 U.S. 238 , 50 S. Ct. 286, 67 A. L. R. 1244.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial