Citation network
Colgate Vs. Harvey
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 16, 1935
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
- Distinguished
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 404 (1935) U.S. Supreme Court Colgate v. HarveySearch
-
U.S. 404 (1935) Colgate v. HarveySearch
-
Thus far, the question is settled in favor of the validity of the tax by prior decisions of this Court. Kidd v. AlabamaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Watson v. StateSearch
-
Lawrence v. StateSearch
-
issue here involved. It is enough that such taxes are not imposed by the State of Vermont. It was so decided in Kidd v. AlabamaSearch
-
Bacon v. BoardSearch
-
of the Constitution which requires that the two sums shall be mathematically equivalent. Concordia Fire Ins. Co. v. IllinoisSearch
-
U. S. 535 , 292 U. S. 547 . In Klein v. BoardSearch
-
Tappan v. Merchants'Search
-
Merchants' Bank v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
does not preclude the states from resorting to classification for the purposes of legislation. Royster Guano Co. v. VirginiaSearch
-
Louisville Gas & Electric Co. v. ColemanSearch
-
Royster Guano Co. v. VirginiaSearch
-
Air-Way Corp. v. DaySearch
-
Frost v. CorporationSearch
-
it must appear not only that a classification has been made, but that it is one based on some reasonable ground. State v. HoytSearch
-
To import any such circumstances into the present situation is to indulge in pure speculation. Compare Travis v. YaleSearch
-
principle, the classification is quite as arbitrary as that dealt with by this Court in Louisville Gas & Electric Co. v. ColemanSearch
-
is not permitted to exact taxes discriminating against goods brought from a sister state. See, for example, Welton v. MissouriSearch
-
Burnet v. BrooksSearch
-
Crandall v. NevadaSearch
-
The same distinction is made by this Court in Bradwell v. IllinoisSearch
-
he is entitled to the protection of each in respect of such rights as fall within its jurisdiction. United States v. CruikshankSearch
-
Among those privileges, however, undoubtedly is the right to pass freely from one state to another. Crandall v. NevadaSearch
-
The doubt as to the first point has been resolved in later cases against the power of the state ( Helson and Randolph v. KentuckySearch
-
tax upon a citizen resident in another state for trading in the territory of the former has been held invalid. Ward v. MarylandSearch
-
of the Fourteenth Amendment. In such case, he may invoke either or both. This seems to be recognized in Allgeyer v. LouisianaSearch
-
the tax were imposed generally upon corporate dividends without exception or discrimination. Travelers' Ins. Co. v. ConnecticutSearch
-
from loans made within the state is not taxed directly or in any indirect way so as to equalize the burden. Woodruff v. ParhamSearch
-
of that case is applicable here, and has the effect of sustaining the tax in respect of loans. Compare Travis v. YaleSearch
-
Fox v. StandardSearch
-
Oil Co., 294 U. S. 87 , 294 U. S. 102 . Cf. Packard v. BantonSearch
-
Gant v. OklahomaSearch
-
moreover, if there be any tendency to interfere with such commerce, it is purely collateral and incidental. Nathan v. LouisianaSearch
-
Diamond Glue Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Anderson v. UnitedSearch
-
Moore v. N.YSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial