Citation network
Davis Vs. Michigan Dept. of Treasury
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 28, 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
-
Davis v. MichiganSearch
-
Dept. of Treasury - 489 U.S. 803 (1989) U.S. Supreme Court Davis v. MichiganSearch
-
Dept. of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803 (1989) Davis v. MichiganSearch
-
can themselves receive the protection of the constitutional doctrine. See, for example, Phillips Chemical Co. v. DumasSearch
-
retirement benefits are deferred compensation for past years of service rendered to the Government. See, e.g., Zucker v. UnitedSearch
-
Kizas v. WebsterSearch
-
Clark v. UnitedSearch
-
must be read in their context, and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme. See United States v. MortonSearch
-
another sovereign under the doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity. This doctrine had its genesis in McCulloch v. MarylandSearch
-
McCulloch was read broadly to bar most taxation by one sovereign of the employees of another. See Collector v. DaySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Dobbins v. CommissionersSearch
-
the Court began to turn away from its more expansive applications of the immunity doctrine. Thus, in Helvering v. GerhardtSearch
-
Government could levy nondiscriminatory taxes on the incomes of most state employees. The following year, Graves v. NewSearch
-
the federal income tax to state and local government employees. The Public Salary Tax Act was enacted after Helvering v. GerhardtSearch
-
considered in Committee, and passed by the House of Representatives before the announcement of the decision in Graves v. NewSearch
-
There are certain indications in the case of McCulloch v. MarylandSearch
-
the nondiscrimination component of the constitutional immunity doctrine which has, from the time of McCulloch v. MarylandSearch
-
United States v. CitySearch
-
of Detroit, 355 U. S. 466 , 355 U. S. 473 (1958). See also McCulloch v. MarylandSearch
-
Miller Page 489 U. S. 813 v. MilwaukeeSearch
-
Phillips Chemical Co. v. DumasSearch
-
Memphis Bank & Trust Co. v. GarnerSearch
-
that Congress intended to adopt the interpretation placed on that concept by the courts. See Midlantic National Bank v. NewSearch
-
Morissette v. UnitedSearch
-
Moses Lake Homes, Inc. v. GrantSearch
-
Collector v. DaySearch
-
of the rationale would have resulted in inclusion of some lessees of State property in the disfavored class as well). v. ForSearch
-
appellant has paid taxes pursuant to this invalid tax scheme, he is entitled to a refund. See Iowa-Des Moines Bank v. BennettSearch
-
Welsh v. UnitedSearch
-
as the direct imposition of a state tax, a remedy beyond the power of a federal court. See Moses Lake Homes, Inc. v. GrantSearch
-
Income Tax Act, a question of state law within the special expertise of the Michigan courts. See Louis K. Liggett Co. v. LeeSearch
-
detain us. Legislative history is irrelevant to the interpretation of an unambiguous statute. United Air Lines, Inc. v. McMannSearch
-
do business with the United States so long as the tax does not discriminate against the United States. South Carolina v. BakerSearch
-
United States v. CountySearch
-
City of Detroit v. MurraySearch
-
thought necessary to prohibit state taxation of the salaries of officers and employees of the United States, Dobbins v. CommissionersSearch
-
of Erie County, 16 Pet. 435 (1842), as well as federal taxation of the salaries of state officials. Collector v. DaySearch
-
Washington v. UnitedSearch
-
principle is not applicable, and constitutional protection is not necessary. As the Court explained in United States v. CountySearch
-
on the other similarly situated constituents of the State. This rule returns to the original intent of M'Culloch v. MarylandSearch
-
the other hand, if the State taxes the income of all its residents equally, federal employees must pay the tax. Graves v. NewSearch
-
York ex rel. O'Keefe, 306 U. S. 466 (1939). See United States v. CountySearch
-
its adverse effect on federal employees. Cf. Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. FeeneySearch
-
of the State to adjust the compensation of its employees to avoid any special tax burden on them. United States v. CountySearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Davis v. MichiganSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial