Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Cal. Equalization Bd. Vs. Sierra Summit

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 12, 1989

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, 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

70 entries 6 linked 64 unlinked
Show
  1. Swarts Vs. Hammer US Supreme Court · May 16, 1904
  2. Mcculloch Vs. Maryland US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1819
  3. Boteler Vs. Ingels US Supreme Court · Nov 06, 1939
  4. Oklahoma City Vs. Tuttle US Supreme Court · Jun 03, 1985
  5. South Carolina Vs. Baker US Supreme Court · Apr 20, 1988
  6. Federated Department Stores, Inc. Vs. Moitie US Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1981
  7. Cal. Equalization Bd. v. Sierra
    Search
  8. Summit - 490 U.S. 844 (1989) U.S. Supreme Court Cal. Equalization Bd. v. Sierra
    Search
  9. Summit, 490 U.S. 844 (1989) California State Bd. of Equalization v. Sierra
    Search
  10. the Court of Appeals rejected petitioner's argument that it had wrongly decided California State Board of Equalization v. Goggin
    Search
  11. those municipal and state withholding and property taxes on the bankruptcy trustee which have been upheld, see Otte v. United
    Search
  12. bankruptcy court, and therefore violates principles of intergovernmental tax immunity first recognized in McCulloch v. Maryland
    Search
  13. a tax on the contract, and thereby imposed a burden on governmental operations. See, e.g., Panhandle Oil Co. v. Knox
    Search
  14. Collector v. Day
    Search
  15. Dobbins v. Commissioners
    Search
  16. Weston v. City
    Search
  17. its operations. While the former was permissible, the latter was constitutionally proscribed. See, e.g., 85 U. S. v. Peniston
    Search
  18. James v. Dravo
    Search
  19. although this Court held as early as 1904 that States could impose a property tax on a bankrupt estate, see Swarts v. Hammer
    Search
  20. bankruptcy trustee. See, e.g., In re Flatbush Gum Co., 73 F.2d 283 (CA2 1934), cert. denied sub nom. New York v. Arnold
    Search
  21. U.S. 713 (1935). In James v. Dravo
    Search
  22. Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New
    Search
  23. Mexico, ante at 174 (quoting South Carolina v. Baker
    Search
  24. United States v. New
    Search
  25. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Weintraub
    Search
  26. Department of Employment v. United
    Search
  27. b)(1)(B) (1982 ed. and Supp. V). Cf. Missouri v. Gleick
    Search
  28. those municipal and state withholding and property taxes on the bankruptcy trustee which we have upheld, see Otte v. United
    Search
  29. this particular statutory provision. Although Congress can confer an immunity from state taxation, see Washington v. United
    Search
  30. First Agricultural Nat. Bank v. State
    Search
  31. United States v. City
    Search
  32. Rockford Life Ins. Co. v. Illinois
    Search
  33. Dept. of Revenue, 482 U. S. 182 , 482 U. S. 191 (1987). See also Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. United
    Search
  34. Graves v. New
    Search
  35. tax a bankruptcy estate notwithstanding any intergovernmental immunity objection that might be interposed, cf. Davis v. Michigan
    Search
  36. Palmer v. Webster
    Search
  37. process from those taxes the States may impose on the bankrupt estate. Eighty-five years ago, in Swarts v. Hammer
    Search
  38. Statement, Specification of Error and Argument for Appellant in Swarts v. Hammer
    Search
  39. California State Board of Equalization v. Goggin
    Search
  40. is California State Board of Equalization v. Goggin
    Search
  41. F.2d 887 (CA11) (holding that bankruptcy trustee is not liable for excise taxes), cert. denied sub nom. Florida v. Great
    Search
  42. be properly presented. In these circumstances, we may decide the question decided by the Court of Appeals. See Canton v. Harris
    Search
  43. Donovan v. City
    Search
  44. in 1948 as part of the general revision of the Judicial Code, and impart no significant change in meaning. See Finley v. United
    Search
  45. Ironically, the District Court decision in Howe v. Atlantic
    Search
  46. passage of the Act was reversed on state law grounds even before the Act was signed into law. See Kansas City v. Johnson
    Search
  47. Thompson v. State
    Search
  48. is not properly presented. Although the majority may well be correct that California State Board of Equalization v. Goggin
    Search
  49. not now subject to collateral attack in these contempt proceedings. This Court, in Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Moitie
    Search
  50. Id. at 452 U. S. 398 . In Maggio v. Zeitz
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial