Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Bromley Vs. Mccaughn

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Nov 25, 1929

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

60 entries 7 linked 53 unlinked
Show
  1. Knowlton Vs. Moore US Supreme Court · May 14, 1900
  2. Nicol Vs. Ames US Supreme Court · Apr 08, 1899
  3. Patton Vs. Brady US Supreme Court · Mar 17, 1902
  4. Scholey Vs. Rew US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1874
  5. Spreckels Sugar Refining Co. Vs. Mcclain US Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1904
  6. Blodgett Vs. Holden US Supreme Court · Nov 21, 1927
  7. Veazie Bank Vs. Fenno US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1869
  8. U.S. 124 (1929) U.S. Supreme Court Bromley v. McCaughn
    Search
  9. U.S. 124 (1929) Bromley v. McCaughn
    Search
  10. The first question was mooted by counsel, but not decided, in Blodgett v. Holden
    Search
  11. U. S. 142 , and Untermyer v. Anderson
    Search
  12. requirement for their apportionment have been so often and exhaustively considered by this Court, Hylton v. United
    Search
  13. Pollock v. Farmers'
    Search
  14. upon or collected from persons because of their general ownership of property may be taken to be direct, Pollock v. Farmers'
    Search
  15. which need not be apportioned, and it is enough for present purposes that this tax is of the latter class. Hylton v. United
    Search
  16. Thomas v. United
    Search
  17. Billings v. United
    Search
  18. McCray v. United
    Search
  19. supra. See also Flint v. Stone
    Search
  20. Stratton's Independence v. Howbert
    Search
  21. Doyle v. Mitchell
    Search
  22. Stanton v. Baltic
    Search
  23. the exercise of the power to give property inter vivos and the disposition of it by legacy, upheld in Knowlton v. Moore
    Search
  24. supra, the succession tax in Scholey v. Rew
    Search
  25. supra, the tax upon the manufacture and sale of colored oleomargarine in McCray v. United
    Search
  26. States, supra, the tax upon sales of grain upon an exchange in Nicol v. Ames
    Search
  27. supra, the tax upon sales of shares of stock in Thomas v. United
    Search
  28. States, supra, the tax upon the use of foreign built yachts in Billings v. United
    Search
  29. States, supra, the tax upon the use of carriages in Hylton v. United
    Search
  30. Veazie Bank v. Fenno
    Search
  31. upon the owner merely because he is owner, regardless of the use of disposition made of his property. See Billings v. United
    Search
  32. Pierce v. United
    Search
  33. so vital to the maintenance of the national government. Nicol v. Ames
    Search
  34. single power indispensable to the enjoyment of all others over it, would be in effect a tax upon property, see Dawson v. Kentucky
    Search
  35. be said to be a more important incident of property than the power to use, the exercise of which was taxed in Billings v. United
    Search
  36. is geographic, not intrinsic. A graduated tax, on legacies, granting exemptions, Knowlton v. Moore
    Search
  37. supra, or on incomes, Brushaber v. Union
    Search
  38. does not violate this clause of the Constitution, nor are such taxes infringements on the Fifth Amendment. Knowlton v. Moore
    Search
  39. Brushaber v. Union
    Search
  40. upheld as not violating either the due process or the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, Stebbins v. Riley
    Search
  41. features, and otherwise valid, could be deemed a denial of the due process clause of the Fifth. See Van Oster v. Kansas
    Search
  42. Stebbins v. Riley
    Search
  43. and that to levy a tax by reason of ownership of property is to Page 280 U. S. 140 tax the property. Dawson v. Kentucky
    Search
  44. Court, it has become axiomatic that it is the substance, and not the form, that controls in such matters. Brown v. Maryland
    Search
  45. Page 280 U. S. 141 In Cook v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  46. goods were imported in the original package and sold for the importer, the law authorizing the tax was void. Nicol v. Ames
    Search
  47. opinion will make the distinction clear. Referring to the cases which had been cited against the tax, including Brown v. Maryland
    Search
  48. U.S. Supreme Court Bromley v. McCaughn
    Search
  49. and Untermyer v. Anderson
    Search
  50. Court, Hylton v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial