Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Eisner Vs. Macomber

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 08, 1920

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

73 entries 7 linked 66 unlinked
Show
  1. Gibbons Vs. Mahon US Supreme Court · May 19, 1890
  2. Mcculloch Vs. Maryland US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1819
  3. Craig Vs. Missouri US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1830
  4. Jarrolt Vs. Moberly US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1880
  5. Towne Vs. Eisner US Supreme Court · Jan 07, 1918
  6. Lynch Vs. Hornby US Supreme Court · Jun 03, 1918
  7. Peabody Vs. Eisner US Supreme Court · Jun 03, 1918
  8. U.S. 189 (1920) U.S. Supreme Court Eisner v. Macomber
    Search
  9. U.S. 189 (1920) Eisner v. Macomber
    Search
  10. and in good faith against profits accumulated by the corporation since March 1, 1913. P. 252 U. S. 201 . Towne v. Eisner
    Search
  11. the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment. A general demurrer to the complaint was overruled upon the authority of Towne v. Eisner
    Search
  12. that the judgment of the district court must be affirmed, first, because the question at issue is controlled by Towne v. Eisner
    Search
  13. of the question here presented, and that other fundamental considerations lead to the same result. In Towne v. Eisner
    Search
  14. and, having referred to Pollock v. Farmers'
    Search
  15. It declined, however, to accede to the contention that, in Gibbons v. Mahon
    Search
  16. In short, the corporation is no poorer and the stockholder is no richer than they were before. Logan County v. United
    Search
  17. very clear that Congress intended in that act to exert its power to the extent permitted by the amendment. In Towne v. Eisner
    Search
  18. was Page 252 U. S. 204 based upon profits earned before the amendment. We ruled at the same term, in Lynch v. Hornby
    Search
  19. U. S. 339 , that a cash dividend extraordinary in amount, and in Peabody v. Eisner
    Search
  20. In Peabody v. Eisner
    Search
  21. U. S. 349 , 247 U. S. 350 , we observed that the decision of the district court in Towne v. Eisner
    Search
  22. Therefore, Towne v. Eisner
    Search
  23. clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the amendment was adopted. In Pollock v. Farmers'
    Search
  24. the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income. Brushaber v. Union
    Search
  25. Stanton v. Baltic
    Search
  26. Peck & Co. v. Lowe
    Search
  27. the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 ( Stratton's Independence v. Howbert
    Search
  28. Doyle v. Mitchell
    Search
  29. of the company among the shareholders, while the former does not, and for no citation of authority except Peabody v. Eisner
    Search
  30. are cited in support of the position of the government. Page 252 U. S. 216 Swan Brewery Co., Ltd. v. Rex
    Search
  31. to test an act of Congress by the limitations of a written Constitution having superior force. In Tax Commissioner v. Putnam
    Search
  32. it by construction. Upon the second argument, the government, recognizing the force of the decision in Towne v. Eisner
    Search
  33. is settled beyond peradventure by previous decisions of this Court. The government relies upon Collector v. Hubbard
    Search
  34. stockholder's interest in accumulated earnings prior to dividend declared, it must be regarded as overruled by Pollock v. Farmers'
    Search
  35. Loan & Trust Co., 158 U. S. 601 , 158 U. S. 627 -628, 158 U. S. 637 . Conceding Collector v. Hubbard
    Search
  36. MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, dissenting. I think that Towne v. Eisner
    Search
  37. Bishop v. State
    Search
  38. State v. Butler
    Search
  39. Fla. 102, 133. For it was for public adoption that it was proposed. McCulloch v. Maryland
    Search
  40. put a question like the present to rest. I am of opinion that the Amendment justifies the tax. See Tax Commissioner v. Putnam
    Search
  41. the Standard Oil companies since the disintegration pursuant to the decision of this Court in 1911. Standard Oil Co. v. United
    Search
  42. or in stock. It had been so held in New York, where the question arose as between life tenant and remainderman, Lowry v. Farmers'
    Search
  43. Matter of Osborne, 209 N.Y. 450, and also, where the question arose in matters of taxation, People v. Glynn
    Search
  44. In determining the scope of the power, the substance of the transaction, not its form, has been regarded. Martin v. Hunter
    Search
  45. Brown v. Maryland
    Search
  46. Lithograph Co. v. Sarony
    Search
  47. United States v. Realty
    Search
  48. South Carolina v. United
    Search
  49. See Green v. Bissell
    Search
  50. Leland v. Hayden
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial