Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Gregg Dying Co. Vs. Query

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 31, 1932

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

31 entries 5 linked 26 unlinked
Show
  1. Hanover Fire Ins. Co. Vs. Harding US Supreme Court · Nov 23, 1926
    Relied / Followed
  2. Hart Refineries Vs. Harmon US Supreme Court · Feb 18, 1929
  3. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. Vs. Arkansas US Supreme Court · Apr 04, 1910
    Relied / Followed
  4. Shaffer Vs. Carter US Supreme Court · Mar 01, 1920
  5. General American Tank Car Corp. Vs. Day US Supreme Court · Mar 01, 1926
  6. U.S. 472 (1932) U.S. Supreme Court Gregg Dying Co. v. Query
    Search
  7. U.S. 472 (1932) Gregg Dying Co. v. Query
    Search
  8. found in the operation and effect of the statute as applied and enforced by the state. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Arkansas
    Search
  9. Texas Co. v. Page
    Search
  10. Sonneborn Bros. v. Cureton
    Search
  11. of gasoline thus brought into the state be taxed, but its use as well. This was specifically determined in Bowman v. Continental
    Search
  12. Oil Co., 256 U. S. 642 , 256 U. S. 648 -649. See Hart Refineries v. Harmon
    Search
  13. Breece Lumber Co. v. Asplund
    Search
  14. exception in the case of a tax directly on use in interstate commerce, as on use in interstate transportation. Helson v. Kentucky
    Search
  15. Eastern Air Transport v. South
    Search
  16. appellants which was kept within the state for use in their local enterprises. As the Court said, in Hart Refineries v. Harmon
    Search
  17. or more statutes must be taken together, we accept that conclusion as if written into the statutes themselves. Hebert v. Louisiana
    Search
  18. U. S. 312 , 272 U. S. 317 . See Lindsley v. Natural
    Search
  19. the consumer, although not placed upon the consumer directly. No reason is found to challenge this view. Texas Co. v. Brown
    Search
  20. Panhandle Oil Co. v. Mississippi
    Search
  21. Indian Motocycle Co. v. United
    Search
  22. conception. We must deal in this matter, as in others, with substantial distinctions and real injuries. Shaffer v. Carter
    Search
  23. equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The statement of this Court in General American Tank Car Corp. v. Day
    Search
  24. Together with No. 245, City of Greenville et al. v. Query
    Search
  25. U.S. Supreme Court Gregg Dying Co. v. Query
    Search
  26. Bowman v. Continental
    Search
  27. See Hart Refineries v. Harmon
    Search
  28. Helson v. Kentucky
    Search
  29. Hebert v. Louisiana
    Search
  30. See Lindsley v. Natural
    Search
  31. Texas Co. v. Brown
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial