Citation network
Jefferson County Vs. Acker
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 29, 1999
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
-
U.S. 423 (1999) October Term, 1998 Syllabus Jefferson County, Alabama V. AckerSearch
-
a)(3). To qualify for removal, the officer must both raise a colorable federal defense, see Mesa v. CaliforniaSearch
-
between the charged conduct and asserted official authority. Willingham v. MorganSearch
-
form of a declaratory judgment, the Court has held that declaratory relief falls within the Act's compass. California v. GraceSearch
-
and State 425 Governments from taxing the salaries of another sovereign's employees. See, e. g., Dobbins v. CommissionersSearch
-
of Erie Cty., 16 Pet. 435, 450. In Graves v. NewSearch
-
Government. Since Graves, the Court has reaffirmed a narrow approach to governmental tax immunity, United States v. NewSearch
-
directly on one sovereign by the other or that discriminate against a sovereign or those with whom it deals, Davis v. MichiganSearch
-
The Public Salary Tax Act was enacted shortly after release of the Court's decision in Graves. In Howard v. CommissionersSearch
-
a covered occupation, falls under Johnson v. MarylandSearch
-
of the occupational taxpayers, in front view. The Ordinance's actual operation is the decisive factor. See Detroit v. MurraySearch
-
of federal, state, and local officeholders whose services are rendered within the county. See United States v. CountySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
I A Alabama counties, as entities created by the State, can impose no tax absent state authorization. See Estes v. GadsdenSearch
-
the parties to this litigation agree, has not authorized its counties to levy an income tax. See Jefferson County v. AckerSearch
-
M cPheeter v. AuburnSearch
-
their pay and therefore violated the Compensation Clause of Article III of the Constitution. See Jefferson County v. AckerSearch
-
The Court of Appeals declined to address that question, and it is not before this Court. See Jefferson County v. AckerSearch
-
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit initially reversed the District Court's judgment, Jefferson County v. AckerSearch
-
F.3d 848 (1995), but the Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed the District Court's disposition, Jefferson County v. AckerSearch
-
deprived the District Court of jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. Jefferson County v. AckerSearch
-
or actual federal defense generally does not qualify a case for removal. See Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. MottleySearch
-
To qualify for removal, an officer of the federal courts must both raise a colorable federal defense, see Mesa v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Arkansas v. FarmSearch
-
Act's description of suits barred from federal district court adjudication. See Louisiana Land & Exploration Co. v. PilotSearch
-
Nevertheless, in Keleher v. NewSearch
-
on policy problems of substantial public import.''' Ibid. (quoting Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. UnitedSearch
-
in violation of the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine. Jefferson 5 As noted in Keleher v. NewSearch
-
priority to state courts on questions concerning the meaning and proper application of a state tax law. Cf. Burford v. SunSearch
-
Quackenbush v. AllstateSearch
-
United States v. NewSearch
-
Federal and State Governments from taxing the salaries of another sovereign's employees. See, e. g., Dobbins v. CommissionersSearch
-
Collector v. DaySearch
-
Wall. 113, 124 (1871). In Graves v. NewSearch
-
Id., at 487. Since Graves, we 6 Graves carried out the doctrinal contraction presaged in Helvering v. GerhardtSearch
-
held that the Federal Government could tax the salaries of employees of the Port of New York Authority. See also James v. DravoSearch
-
Davis v. MichiganSearch
-
In Howard v. CommissionersSearch
-
federal law. The practical impact, not the State's name tag, determines the answer to that question. See also Detroit v. MurraySearch
-
cf. Ohio Oil Co. v. ConwaySearch
-
the respondent judges urge, as the Eleventh Circuit ruled, that the Ordinance is invalid under Johnson v. MarylandSearch
-
rejects as cause for federal curtailment of the taxing power of state and local governments. See Ohio Oil Co. v. ConwaySearch
-
of the Ordinance-what is and not what might be-that counts in determining the merits of this case. See Detroit v. MurraySearch
-
causation, however, is not enough. In Maryland v. SoperSearch
-
pay the tax-and that, as I have said, is not an act required by, or even performed in connection with, cf. Willingham v. MorganSearch
-
is to give officers a federal forum in which to litigate the merits of immunity defenses. See Willingham v. MorganSearch
-
Syllabus Jefferson County, Alabama V. AckerSearch
-
Mesa v. CaliforniaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial