Citation network
Fairbank Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 15, 1901
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
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
-
Fairbank v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 181 U.S. 283 (1901) U.S. Supreme Court Fairbank v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 181 U.S. 283 (1901) Fairbank v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
in support of this was, in the early history of this Court, forcibly declared by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. MadisonSearch
-
exportation as a direct tax on the article mentioned in the bill of lading as the subject of the export. In Nicol v. AmesSearch
-
articles exported. These considerations find ample support in prior adjudications of this Court. Thus, in Almy v. CaliforniaSearch
-
It is true that thereafter, in Woodruff v. ParhamSearch
-
But that principle is not dependent alone upon the case cited. It was recognized long anterior thereto, in Brown v. MarylandSearch
-
and the other that indirect taxes shall be uniform throughout the United States. In the Income Tax cases, Pollock v. Farmers'Search
-
and not the form, which controls, as has indeed been established by repeated decisions of this Court. Thus, in Brown v. MarylandSearch
-
In Weston v. CharlestonSearch
-
So in Dobbins v. ErieSearch
-
In Almy v. CaliforniaSearch
-
in Railroad Co. v. JacksonSearch
-
that a tax upon the interest payable on bonds was a tax, not upon the debtor, but upon the security, and in Cook v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
In Philadelphia Steamship Co. v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
U. S. 326 , and Leloup v. MobileSearch
-
The substance, and not the shadow, determines the validity of the exercise of the power.' Postal Telegraph Co. v. AdamsSearch
-
In Knowlton v. MooreSearch
-
was as to restrictions and limitations. Other cases may also well be referred to in this connection. In Robbins v. ShelbySearch
-
on the letter, yet in substance and effect destroy the grant or limitation. In Monongahela Navigation Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
upon its power, but that it must be enforced according to its letter and spirit and to the full extent. In Boyd v. UnitedSearch
-
P. 116 U. S. 635 . On the other hand, Pace v. BurgessSearch
-
exported from California by a law of that state was clearly an export tax, as this Court decided in the case of Almy v. CaliforniaSearch
-
held that no state could, by a license or otherwise, impose a burden on the business of interstate commerce. Pickard v. PullmanSearch
-
in interstate commerce so long and so far as they were a part of the property of the state. Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
finally repealed by the Act of June 6, 1872, 17 Stat. 230, 256, and then followed the act in question. In Knowlton v. MooreSearch
-
control when there is no doubt as to the true meaning of the statute. The first class is illustrated by Cohen v. VirginiaSearch
-
Again, in United States v. StateSearch
-
In the second class may be placed Stuart v. LairdSearch
-
Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. SaronySearch
-
United States v. HillSearch
-
U. S. 607 , 127 U. S. 613 , and Schell v. FaucheSearch
-
several Justices announcing the opinions in these cases is not the same, the thought is alike. Thus, in Swift Company v. UnitedSearch
-
In United States v. GrahamSearch
-
In United States v. TannerSearch
-
as it is clear to us that this construction was erroneous, we think it is not too late to overrule it. United States v. GrahamSearch
-
Swift Company v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial