Citation network
Matthews Vs. Rodgers
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 15, 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
-
U.S. 521 (1932) U.S. Supreme Court Matthews v. RodgersSearch
-
U.S. 521 (1932) Matthews v. RodgersSearch
-
Although the present suit arises under the Constitution of the United States, see Davis v. WallaceSearch
-
U. S. 525 may be treated as waived if the objection is not presented by the defendant in limine. Duignan v. UnitedSearch
-
Thompson v. RailroadSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Matson Navigation Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Grace v. AmericanSearch
-
recourse to the extraordinary remedies of equity where the right asserted may be fully protected at law. See Deweese v. ReinhardSearch
-
New York Guaranty Co. v. MemphisSearch
-
federal courts if the essential elements of federal jurisdiction are present. See Boise Artesian Hot & Cold Water Co. v. BoiseSearch
-
Dows v. ChicagoSearch
-
of federal courts to enjoin the collection of the tax, has long been the settled rule in this Court. Henrietta Mills v. RutherfordSearch
-
Arkansas Building & Loan Assn. v. MaddenSearch
-
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v. O'ConnorSearch
-
Allen v. Pullman'sSearch
-
the appellees in Mississippi, if the tax is paid under protest, to avoid penalties or criminal proceedings. In Coulson v. HarrisSearch
-
sole ground that the taxpayer might pay the tax to the collecting officer and sue at law for its recovery. In Tuttle v. EverettSearch
-
in a suit at law brought against the collector before he had paid over the tax to the proper treasury. In Vicksburg v. ButlerSearch
-
Miss. 72, and Pearl River County v. LaceySearch
-
In Pearl River County v. LaceySearch
-
taxpayer to pay the tax or of the collecting officer to respond to the judgment. See Arkansas Building & Loan Assn. v. MaddenSearch
-
Coulson v. HarrisSearch
-
Richardson v. ScottSearch
-
money by the collector in the name of the state, if wrongful, would not protect him. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v. O'ConnorSearch
-
to the state treasurer. See Taylor v. GuySearch
-
of the tax and to afford him some protection in the event of a judgment against him. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v. O'ConnorSearch
-
Mississippi Code of 1930), appears not to be available when there is any other adequate remedy. See Anderson v. IngersollSearch
-
Noxubee County Board of Supervisors v. AmesSearch
-
the Judicial Code is that of the English court of chancery at the time of the separation of the two countries. Payne v. HookSearch
-
the maintenance of any suit in equity in the federal courts, where the legal remedy is adequate. Henrietta Mills v. RutherfordSearch
-
Pusey & Jones Co. v. HanessenSearch
-
alleged showing that more than one suit will be necessary for that purpose. See Boise Artesian Hot & Cold Water Co. v. BoiseSearch
-
Dalton Adding Machine Co. v. StateSearch
-
issues between them and the adverse party are not necessarily identical. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. v. McKnightSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Matthews v. RodgersSearch
-
Davis v. WallaceSearch
-
Duignan v. UnitedSearch
-
Matson Navigation Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
See Deweese v. ReinhardSearch
-
See Boise Artesian Hot & Cold Water Co. v. BoiseSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial