Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Quaker City Cab Co. Vs. Commonwealth

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 28, 1928

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

71 entries 10 linked 61 unlinked
Show
  1. Western Union Tel. Co. Vs. Foster US Supreme Court · May 20, 1918
  2. Sioux Remedy Co. Vs. Cope US Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1914
  3. Northern Pacific R. Co. Vs. Walker US Supreme Court · Apr 03, 1893
  4. Amoskeag Savings Bank Vs. Purdy US Supreme Court · Dec 01, 1913
  5. Brown-forman Co. Vs. Kentucky US Supreme Court · May 16, 1910
  6. Oliver Iron Mining Co. Vs. Lord US Supreme Court · May 07, 1923
  7. interstate Busses Corp. Vs. Blodgett US Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1928
  8. Cudahy Packing Co. Vs. Minnesota US Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1918
  9. Quong Wing Vs. Kirkendall US Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1912
  10. Southwestern Oil Co. Vs. Texas US Supreme Court · Apr 04, 1910
  11. U.S. 389 (1928) U.S. Supreme Court Quaker City Cab Co. v. Commonwealth
    Search
  12. U.S. 389 (1928) Quaker City Cab Co. v. Commonwealth
    Search
  13. that natural persons within its jurisdiction have a right to demand under like circumstances. Kentucky Finance Corp'n v. Paramount
    Search
  14. Power Co. v. Saunders
    Search
  15. such a corporation Page 277 U. S. 401 to surrender the protection of the federal Constitution. Power Co. v. Saunders
    Search
  16. Hanover Insurance Co. v. Harding
    Search
  17. Frost v. Railroad
    Search
  18. Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Tafoya
    Search
  19. Looney v. Crane
    Search
  20. But, in any event, a characterization of the tax by the state court is not binding here. Louisville Gas & Electric Co. v. Coleman
    Search
  21. St. Louis Compress Co. v. Arkansas
    Search
  22. receipts of natural persons and partnerships. No doubt there are situations in which, as appears in Cudahy Packing Co. v. Minnesota
    Search
  23. the practical operation of the section is to be regarded, and it is to be dealt with according to its effect. Frick v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  24. Panhandle Oil Co. v. Mississippi
    Search
  25. be based on a real and substantial difference having reasonable relation to the subject of the legislation. Power Co. v. Saunders
    Search
  26. support to such a classification. And the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has condemned such a classification. Schoyer v. Comet
    Search
  27. County of Santa Clara v. Southern
    Search
  28. be affirmed. The principle that I think should govern is the same that I stated in Louisville Gas & Electric Co. v. Coleman
    Search
  29. degree, and that, to some extent, states may have a domestic policy that they constitutionally may enforce. Quong Wing v. Kirkendall
    Search
  30. disregarded, and I think it would be immaterial if, here and there, exceptions were found to the general rule. Flint v. Stone
    Search
  31. Citizens' Telephone Co. v. Fuller
    Search
  32. Miller v. Wilson
    Search
  33. Armour & Co. v. North
    Search
  34. As the statute applies equally to domestic and to foreign corporations, cases like Southern Ry. Co. v. Greene
    Search
  35. U. S. 400 , Kentucky Finance Corp. v. Paramount
    Search
  36. Auto Exchange, 262 U. S. 544 , Hanover Fire Insurance Co. v. Harding
    Search
  37. U. S. 494 , and Power Manufacturing Co. v. Saunders
    Search
  38. taxing corporations engaged in one class of business more heavily than those engaged in another. Southwestern Oil Co. v. Texas
    Search
  39. Heisler v. Thomas
    Search
  40. Stebbins Page 277 U. S. 406 v. Riley
    Search
  41. and the same business carried on by natural persons is, of course, a real and important one. As was stated in Flint v. Stone-Tracy
    Search
  42. U. S. 408 to be for the privilege of doing business in corporate form is common, and, since Home Insurance Co. v. New
    Search
  43. the federal Constitution, we are to look at the operation or effect of the tax, and not at its name or form. Clark v. Titusville
    Search
  44. U. S. 245 . Compare Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. Co. v. Matthews
    Search
  45. believed that course necessary in order to insure a just distribution of the burdens of government. In Flint v. Stone-Tracy
    Search
  46. consideration. The contention here sustained differs in no essential respect from that made and overruled in Flint v. Stone-Tracy
    Search
  47. the tax must be upheld. More recently in Ft. Smith Lumber Co. v. Arkansas
    Search
  48. Compare Southwestern Oil Co. v. Texas
    Search
  49. the federal Constitution, to place heavier tax burdens on corporations than on individuals. See Kittanning Coal Co. v. Commonwealth
    Search
  50. Commonwealth v. Delaware
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial