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.

Laing Vs. Fox

Laing vs Fox

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1934
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/96056

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
293 U.S. 525
Subject
MRTP

Case Summary

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

MRTP

Key legal issue
MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Laing

Respondent

Fox

Excerpt

laing v. fox - 293 u.s. 525 (1934) u.s. supreme court laing v. fox, 293 u.s. 525 (1934) 293 u.s. 525 john laing, appellant, v. fred l. fox, state tax commissioner of the state of west virginia. no. 433. supreme court of the united states october 22, 1934 mr. arthur s. dayton, of charleston, w. va., for appellant. mr. homer a. holt, for appellee. for opinion below, see 175 s. e. 354. per curiam. the motion of appellee to dismiss the appeal herein is granted, and the appeal is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. (1) southwestern oil co. v. texas, 217 u.s. 114, 121 , 30 s. ct. 496; brown-forman co. v. kentucky, 217 u.s. 563 , 572 et seq., 30 s. ct. 578; american sugar refining co. v. louisiana, 179 u.s. 89, 95 , 21 s. ct. 43; hicklin v. coney, 290 u.s. 169, 176 , 54 s. ct. 142. (2) league v. texas, 184 u.s. 156, 161 , 22 s. ct. 475; kentucky union co. v. kentucky, 219 u.s. 140 , 152- 153, 31 s. ct. 171; a. magnano co. v. hamilton, 292 u.s. 40, 44 , 54 s. ct. 599. (3) supreme lodge, knights of pythias v. meyer, 265 u.s. 30, 32 , 33 s., 44 s. ct. 432; hicklin v. coney, 290 u.s. 169, 172 , 54 s. ct. 142; hartford accident & ind. co. v. n. o. nelson mfg. co., 291 u.s. 352, 358 , 54 s. ct. 392; swiss oil corporation v. shanks, 273 u.s. 407, 413 , 47 s. ct. 393.

Full Judgment

LAING v. FOX - 293 U.S. 525 (1934)
U.S. Supreme Court LAING v. FOX, 293 U.S. 525 (1934)

293 U.S. 525

John LAING, appellant,
v.
Fred L. FOX, State Tax Commissioner of the State of West Virginia.
No. 433.

Supreme Court of the United States

October 22, 1934

Mr. Arthur S. Dayton, of Charleston, W. Va., for appellant.

Mr. Homer A. Holt, for appellee.

For opinion below, see 175 S. E. 354.

PER CURIAM.

The motion of appellee to dismiss the appeal herein is granted, and the appeal is dismissed for the want of a substantial Federal question. (1) Southwestern Oil Co. v. Texas, 217 U.S. 114, 121 , 30 S. Ct. 496; Brown-Forman Co. v. Kentucky, 217 U.S. 563 , 572 et seq., 30 S. Ct. 578; American Sugar Refining Co. v. Louisiana, 179 U.S. 89, 95 , 21 S. Ct. 43; Hicklin v. Coney, 290 U.S. 169, 176 , 54 S. Ct. 142. (2) League v. Texas, 184 U.S. 156, 161 , 22 S. Ct. 475; Kentucky Union Co. v. Kentucky, 219 U.S. 140 , 152- 153, 31 S. Ct. 171; A. Magnano Co. v. Hamilton, 292 U.S. 40, 44 , 54 S. Ct. 599. (3) Supreme Lodge, Knights of Pythias v. Meyer, 265 U.S. 30, 32 , 33 S., 44 S. Ct. 432; Hicklin v. Coney, 290 U.S. 169, 172 , 54 S. Ct. 142; Hartford Accident & Ind. Co. v. N. O. Nelson Mfg. Co., 291 U.S. 352, 358 , 54 S. Ct. 392; Swiss Oil Corporation v. Shanks, 273 U.S. 407, 413 , 47 S. Ct. 393.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial