Citation network
Metcalf and Eddy Vs. Mitchell
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 11, 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
-
Metcalf & Eddy v. MitchellSearch
-
U.S. 514 (1926) U.S. Supreme Court Metcalf & Eddy v. MitchellSearch
-
U.S. 514 (1926) Metcalf & Eddy v. MitchellSearch
-
Page 269 U. S. 519 of this Court is not limited to that question alone, but extends to the whole case. Horner v. UnitedSearch
-
Greene v. LouisvilleSearch
-
is created, the law usually fixes its incidents, including its terms, its duties and its compensation. United States v. HartwellSearch
-
Hall v. WisconsinSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
and prescribing their duties, could not operate to create an office or give to plaintiffs the status of officers. Hall v. WisconsinSearch
-
station, permanent in character, created by law, whose incidents and duties were prescribed by law. See United States v. MauriceSearch
-
Adams v. MurphySearch
-
and differentiates the employee or servant from the independent contractor. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. v. BondSearch
-
U. S. 215 , 212 U. S. 227 . And see Casement v. BrownSearch
-
Singer Mfg. Co. v. RahnSearch
-
instrumentalities of the federal government. See, as to federal taxation on state instrumentalities, Collector v. DaySearch
-
United States v. RailroadSearch
-
Pollock v. Farmers'Search
-
Ambrosini v. UnitedSearch
-
Flint v. StoneSearch
-
cases holding that the Sixteenth Amendment did not extend the taxing power to any new class of subjects, Brushaber v. UnionSearch
-
Peck & Co. v. LoweSearch
-
U. S. 245 , 253 U. S. 259 . And, as to state taxation on federal instrumentalities, See McCulloch v. MarylandSearch
-
Dobbins v. CommissionersSearch
-
The Banks v. TheSearch
-
Weston v. CitySearch
-
Farmers' Bank v. MinnesotaSearch
-
Choctaw, O. & G. R. Co. v. HarrisonSearch
-
Indian Oil Co. v. OklahomaSearch
-
from the taxing power of the other. Thus, the employment of officers who are agents to administer its laws ( Collector v. DaySearch
-
of Erie County, supra ), its obligations sold to raise public funds ( Weston v. CitySearch
-
its investments of public funds in the securities of private corporations, for public purposes ( United States v. RailroadSearch
-
Co., supra ), surety bonds exacted by it in the exercise of its police power ( Ambrosini v. UnitedSearch
-
that character, the immunity extends not only to the instrumentality itself, but to income derived from it ( Pollock v. Farmers'Search
-
Loan & Trust Co., Gillespie v. OklahomaSearch
-
supra ), and forbids an occupation tax imposed on its use ( Choctaw, O. & Gulf R. Co. v. HarrisonSearch
-
supra ). And see Dobbins v. CommissionersSearch
-
Page 269 U. S. 523 property is an instrumentality of government within the meaning of the rule. Thompson v. PacificSearch
-
Railroad Co. v. PenistonSearch
-
Gromer v. StandardSearch
-
Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
Choctaw, O. & G. R. Co. v. MackeySearch
-
it may administer its affairs within its own sphere, must be left free from undue interference by the other. McCulloch v. MarylandSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Metcalf & Eddy v. MitchellSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial