Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Jaybird Mining Co Vs. Weir

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 07, 1926

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

72 entries 11 linked 61 unlinked
Show
  1. Gillespie Vs. Oklahoma US Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1922
  2. Swarts Vs. Hammer US Supreme Court · May 16, 1904
  3. Baltimore Shipbuilding Co. Vs. Baltimore US Supreme Court · Nov 28, 1904
    Relied / Followed
  4. National Bank Vs. Commonwealth US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1869
    Relied / Followed
  5. Wagoner Vs. Evans US Supreme Court · May 23, 1898
  6. Pennock Vs. Commissioners US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1880
  7. Goudy Vs. Meath US Supreme Court · Nov 19, 1906
  8. United States Vs. Noble US Supreme Court · Apr 05, 1915
  9. Forbes Vs. Gracey US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1876
  10. Van BrocklIn Vs. Tennessee US Supreme Court · Mar 01, 1886
  11. United States Vs. Rickert US Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1903
  12. U.S. 609 (1926) U.S. Supreme Court Jaybird Mining Co v. Weir
    Search
  13. U.S. 609 (1926) Jaybird Mining Co v. Weir
    Search
  14. dependents in respect of their property. The restrictions imposed are in furtherance of that policy. United States v. Noble
    Search
  15. Goodrum v. Buffalo
    Search
  16. and use of the restricted land and to mine ores therefrom for the benefit of its Indian wards. Choctaw, O. & G. R. Co. v. Harrison
    Search
  17. universal and undiscriminating, the state's inability to interfere has been regarded as established since McCulloch v. Maryland
    Search
  18. Johnson v. Maryland
    Search
  19. U. S. 51 , 254 U. S. 55 . And see Farmers' Bank v. Minnesota
    Search
  20. Choctaw, O. & G. R. Co. v. Harison
    Search
  21. This Court has considered a number of cases quite like the one now before us. In Choctaw, O. & G. R. Co. v. Harrison
    Search
  22. mining lease made in furtherance of the governmental purpose could not be subjected to that burden. In Indian Oil Co. v. Oklahoma
    Search
  23. In Howard v. Oil
    Search
  24. gas, less the royalty interest, under leases upon Osage lands made for the benefit of the Indians. In Large Oil Co. v. Howard
    Search
  25. in the production of oil and gas in what formerly constituted the tribal lands of the Osage Nation. And in Gillespie v. Oklahoma
    Search
  26. presented a petition for a writ of certiorari, but, as a writ of error lies, the petition will be denied. Gillespie v. Oklahoma
    Search
  27. of the United States is remote, and the tax is valid under the doctrine approved in Central Pac. R. Co. v. California
    Search
  28. to extend to personalty, even though the product of the realty, so as to exempt them from taxation. Compare McCurdy v. United
    Search
  29. United States v. Gray
    Search
  30. United States v. Ransom
    Search
  31. Any exemption that attached to the land is limited thereto, and does not extend to the ore extracted therefrom. Forbes v. Gracey
    Search
  32. U. S. 762 , 94 U. S. 765 -766. Compare South Utah Mines v. Beaver
    Search
  33. We are not dealing here with property owned by the United States, as in Van Brocklin v. Tennessee
    Search
  34. U. S. 151 , or Lee v. Osceola
    Search
  35. all of whose property was acquired and is used solely for the purpose of serving the government, as in Clallam County v. United
    Search
  36. And we are dealing with a property tax, as distinguished from an occupation tax. Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf Ry. Co. v. Harrison
    Search
  37. Oklahoma v. Texas
    Search
  38. It has not done so in terms, and I see no reason for assuming that it intended to do so. Compare Mid-Northern Oil Co. v. Walker
    Search
  39. Thompson v. Kentucky
    Search
  40. Railroad Co. v. Peniston
    Search
  41. under a federal charter has since been followed as to other federal instrumentalities also. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Massachusetts
    Search
  42. Central Pacific Railroad Co. v. California
    Search
  43. Gromer v. Standard
    Search
  44. Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf Ry. Co. v. Mackey
    Search
  45. was in aid of the government's policy of protecting and developing the properties of its Indian wards. Thomas v. Gay
    Search
  46. Catholic Missions v. Missoula
    Search
  47. might be in the ore bins on the day as of which property is assessed. Conceivably also, the cattle owner in Thomas v. Gay
    Search
  48. its lack of power to tax the occupation in which it is used exist in other connections. In Baltimore Shipbuilding Co. v. Baltimore
    Search
  49. I suspect that my brethren would agree with me in sustaining this tax on ore in the bins but for Gillespie v. Oklahoma
    Search
  50. Keokuk v. Ulam
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial