Citation network
Ozark Pipe Line Corp. Vs. Monier
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 12, 1925
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. 555 (1925) U.S. Supreme Court Ozark Pipe Line Corp. v. MonierSearch
-
U.S. 555 (1925) Ozark Pipe Line Corporation v. MonierSearch
-
against appellant dismissing its bill. The tax is one upon the privilege or right to do business, State ex rel. v. StateSearch
-
of subjects of commerce, the receipts derived therefrom, or the occupation or business of carrying it on. Leloup v. PortSearch
-
Kansas City Ry. v. KansasSearch
-
operation of appellant's pipeline is interstate commerce, and beyond the power of state taxation. Eureka Pipe Line Co. v. HallananSearch
-
upon such commerce, the tax is good. An illustration of such a tax is found in New York ex rel. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. KnightSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
the states, a like separation may be recognized between the control of the state and that of the nation. Osborne v. FloridaSearch
-
On the other hand, in Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
and substantial. and extends to whatever is necessary to the complete enjoyment of the right protected. Heyman v. HaysSearch
-
supra, p. 236 U. S. 186 . The court below grounded its decision chiefly upon Cheney Brothers Co. v. MassachusettsSearch
-
commerce. The state has no such power, even in the case of domestic corporations. See Philadelphia Steamship Co. v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
Terminal Co. v. NewSearch
-
by federal instrumentalities in the absence of legislation by Congress authorizing such taxation. See Thomson v. UnionSearch
-
Pacific Railroad, 9 Wall. 579. It is not the immunity of a federal corporate franchise, as in California v. CentralSearch
-
commerce. Thus, a tax is a direct burden where it is upon property moving in interstate commerce, Champlain Realty Co. v. BrattleboroSearch
-
or where, like a gross receipts tax, it lays a burden upon every transaction in such commerce, Crew Levick Co. v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
Thus, a tax is valid although imposed upon property used exclusively in interstate commerce, Transportation Co. v. WheelingSearch
-
Old Dominion S.S. Co. v. VirginiaSearch
-
or although laid upon net income derived exclusively from interstate commerce, United States Glue Co. v. OakSearch
-
U. S. 37 , 252 U. S. 57 . Compare Peck & Co. v. LoweSearch
-
Wagner v. PageSearch
-
See Crew Levick Co. v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
which are located within the state. The question of a limit upon the amount of the tax discussed in Baltic Mining Co. v. MassachusettsSearch
-
U. S. 68 , 231 U. S. 87 , and International Paper Co. v. MassachusettsSearch
-
See the discussion of Adams Express Co. v. OhioSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Ozark Pipe Line Corp. v. MonierSearch
-
Ozark Pipe Line Corporation v. MonierSearch
-
Leloup v. PortSearch
-
Pennsylvania R. Co. v. KnightSearch
-
Osborne v. FloridaSearch
-
R. Co. v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
Cheney Brothers Co. v. MassachusettsSearch
-
See Philadelphia Steamship Co. v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
Texas Transport & Terminal Co. v. NewSearch
-
See Thomson v. UnionSearch
-
California v. CentralSearch
-
Transportation Co. v. WheelingSearch
-
United States Glue Co. v. OakSearch
-
Compare Peck & Co. v. LoweSearch
-
and International Paper Co. v. MassachusettsSearch
-
of Adams Express Co. v. OhioSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial