Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Texas Co. Vs. Brown

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 17, 1922

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

53 entries 5 linked 48 unlinked
Show
  1. Duplex Printing Press Co. Vs. Deering US Supreme Court · Jan 03, 1921
  2. Pure Oil Co. Vs. Minnesota US Supreme Court · Dec 09, 1918
  3. Standard Oil Co. Vs. Graves US Supreme Court · Apr 14, 1919
  4. Leisy Vs. Hardin US Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1890
    Distinguished
  5. Woodruff Vs. Parham US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1868
    Distinguished
  6. U.S. 466 (1922) U.S. Supreme Court Texas Co. v. Brown
    Search
  7. U.S. 466 (1922) Texas Company v. Brown
    Search
  8. goods of that kind are not produced locally, but are all imported from other states. P. 258 U. S. 476 . Askren v. Continental
    Search
  9. of the United States. Upon the merits, questions of state law were and are raised, as they may be ( Greene v. Louisville
    Search
  10. out of interstate commerce, although restrained with respect to products while in such commerce, citing Ratterman v. Western
    Search
  11. of practical separability in administration, applied by this Court to a taxing law single on its face in Ratterman v. Western
    Search
  12. Union Tel. Co., 127 U. S. 411 , a case followed, since the decision below, in Bowman v. Continental
    Search
  13. since the case involves only relief by injunction, and this operates wholly in futuro. Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering
    Search
  14. commerce from state to state (there being no legislation by Congress upon the subject), is well settled. Pure Oil Co. v. Minnesota
    Search
  15. and hence invalid because inconsistent with the exclusive authority of Congress over that subject. Standard Oil Co. v. Graves
    Search
  16. of in domestic trade, in view of the fact that all of it has come from other states. But American Steel & Wire Co. v. Speed
    Search
  17. Page 258 U. S. 476 in original packages. This decision is in line with the previous cases of Woodruff v. Parham
    Search
  18. Wall. 123, 75 U. S. 140 , and Brown v. Houston
    Search
  19. U. S. 622 , 114 U. S. 632 -634, and it was pointed out that their authority was not overruled by Leisy v. Hardin
    Search
  20. U. S. 100 , or other cases of like character. Appellant insists that Standard Oil Co. v. Graves
    Search
  21. App. 249 U. S. 394 -395), and so it was interpreted in Askren v. Continental
    Search
  22. Oil Co., 252 U. S. 444 , 252 U. S. 449 . Brown v. Houston
    Search
  23. and American Steel & Wire Co. v. Speed
    Search
  24. domestic sales made of personal property similarly freed from interstate commerce, as is illustrated in Woodruff v. Parham
    Search
  25. Wagner v. City
    Search
  26. of itself sufficient to show a discrimination against interstate commerce. The precise point was dealt with in Askren v. Continental
    Search
  27. The ruling was reiterated in the same case at its final state, Bowman v. Continental
    Search
  28. involving liability for fees, while the products yet remain in the tank cars. A like question raised in Pure Oil Co. v. Minnesota
    Search
  29. but the practical operation and effect of the statutory provisions, which is the proper method ( St. Louis S.W. Ry. v. Arkansas
    Search
  30. regulation with revenue raising is not a valid objection from the standpoint of the Fourteenth Amendment. Gundling v. Chicago
    Search
  31. must be strictly on an ad valorem basis -- without variance even as between real and personal property ( Verdery v. Village
    Search
  32. Mayor v. Weed
    Search
  33. may be resorted to, and the taxes adjusted according to reasonable methods of classification. Atlanta National Assn. v. Stewart
    Search
  34. upon the privilege of transfer upon death of an owner, were held valid, although not ad valorem, in Farkas v. Smith
    Search
  35. warrant for putting them in a class by themselves for excise taxation upon their sale or use. So we held, in Bowman v. Continental
    Search
  36. materially. While some of the Georgia decisions indicate a rather strict view of the uniformity required ( Johnson v. Mayor
    Search
  37. Beckett v. Mayor
    Search
  38. U.S. Supreme Court Texas Co. v. Brown
    Search
  39. Texas Company v. Brown
    Search
  40. Askren v. Continental
    Search
  41. Greene v. Louisville
    Search
  42. Ratterman v. Western
    Search
  43. Bowman v. Continental
    Search
  44. But American Steel & Wire Co. v. Speed
    Search
  45. of Woodruff v. Parham
    Search
  46. and Brown v. Houston
    Search
  47. Brown v. Houston
    Search
  48. St. Louis S.W. Ry. v. Arkansas
    Search
  49. of the Fourteenth Amendment. Gundling v. Chicago
    Search
  50. Verdery v. Village
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial