Citation network
New York Vs. Latrobe
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 13, 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
-
U.S. 421 (1929) U.S. Supreme Court New York v. LatrobeSearch
-
U.S. 421 (1929) New York v. LatrobeSearch
-
obtaining a certificate of authority from the state and to the continuance of business there. People ex rel. Griffith v. LoughmanSearch
-
capital stock of domestic corporations by Chapter 143 of the Laws of 1886. See People ex rel. Elliott-Fischer Co. v. SohmerSearch
-
into the state, and the corporation was thus in a position to invoke the equal protection clause, see Hanover Ins. Co. v. HardingSearch
-
the invalidity of the taxing statute was established by the decision of this Court in Air-Way Electric Appliance Corp. v. DaySearch
-
reached the opposite conclusion both as to the nature of the tax and its constitutionality. People ex rel. Griffith v. LoughmanSearch
-
assuming that the bankrupt corporation was within the state, and thus entitled to equal protection ( Hanover Ins. Co. v. HardingsSearch
-
Southern Ry. Co. v. GreeneSearch
-
Page 279 U. S. 425 not a reasonable measure of the tax imposed on such a privilege. And in Roberts & Schaefer Co. v. EmmersonSearch
-
property outside the state, since the tax is apportioned to the property used within it. See International Shoe Co. v. ShartelSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
and, when otherwise unobjectionable, has been repeatedly upheld by this Court. See St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. ArkansasSearch
-
Hump Hairpin Co. v. EmmersonSearch
-
Cheney Brothers Co. v. MassachusettsSearch
-
per share and apportioned to the property and business of the corporation within the state. Margay Oil Corp. v. ApplegateSearch
-
U.S. 666, aff'g State v. MargaySearch
-
Gilliland Oil Co. v. ArkansasSearch
-
a permissible scheme of franchise tax for domestic corporations, based on capital stock ( Roberts & Schaefer Co. v. EmmersonSearch
-
nothing in the Constitution which requires a state to adopt the best possible system of taxation. Southwestern Oil Co. v. TexasSearch
-
done or property owned within the state. It may be rested on the nature of the business ( Southwestern Oil Co. v. TexasSearch
-
Connolly v. UnionSearch
-
U. S. 540 , 184 U. S. 562 ), or the particular form in which it is carried on ( see Home Insurance Co. v. NewSearch
-
relation to the privilege granted or to the protection of the interests of the state. See Roberts & Schaefer Co. v. EmmersonSearch
-
having nonpar stock from that applied to corporations having stock of par value. In Roberts & Schaefer Co. v. EmmersonSearch
-
Cf. Johnson v. LouisvilleSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court New York v. LatrobeSearch
-
Griffith v. LoughmanSearch
-
Elliott-Fischer Co. v. SohmerSearch
-
Hanover Ins. Co. v. HardingSearch
-
Air-Way Electric Appliance Corp. v. DaySearch
-
Hanover Ins. Co. v. HardingsSearch
-
Southern Ry. Co. v. GreeneSearch
-
Roberts & Schaefer Co. v. EmmersonSearch
-
See International Shoe Co. v. ShartelSearch
-
Court. See St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. ArkansasSearch
-
Margay Oil Corp. v. ApplegateSearch
-
State v. MargaySearch
-
Connolly v. UnionSearch
-
Home Insurance Co. v. NewSearch
-
See Roberts & Schaefer Co. v. EmmersonSearch
-
In Roberts & Schaefer Co. v. EmmersonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial