Citation network
James Vs. Dravo Contracting Co.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 06, 1937
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
-
James v. DravoSearch
-
Contracting Co. - 302 U.S. 134 (1937) U.S. Supreme Court James v. DravoSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134 (1937) James v. DravoSearch
-
on within the territorial limits of West Virginia, the state had no jurisdiction to impose the tax. Hans Rees' Sons v. NorthSearch
-
Shaffer v. PageSearch
-
that state, and an apportionment would, in any event, be necessary to limit the tax accordingly. Hans Rees' Sons v. NorthSearch
-
the United States has such jurisdiction, the state would have no authority to lay the tax. Surplus Trading Company v. CookSearch
-
authority of the Federal Government to have the work performed for purposes within the federal province ( Scranton v. WheelerSearch
-
United States v. Chandler-DunbarSearch
-
it is simply one of territorial jurisdiction. The title to the beds of the rivers was in the state. Pollard v. HaganSearch
-
Port of Seattle v. Oregon-WashingtonSearch
-
Borax Consolidated v. LosSearch
-
supra. But, although burdened by that servitude, the state held the title. Gibson v. UnitedSearch
-
was simply the exercise of the dominant Page 302 U. S. 141 right of the Federal Government ( Gibson v. UnitedSearch
-
is consistent only with exclusive jurisdiction. Surplus Trading Co. v. CookSearch
-
out of the purpose of the acquisition -- determine the extent of the federal jurisdiction. Fort Leavenworth R. Co. v. LoweSearch
-
Surplus Trading Company v. CookSearch
-
in view of the nature and functions of the national government which the Constitution established. In Sharon v. HillSearch
-
to a court building and custom house on land which had been purchased with the consent of the state. In Battle v. UnitedSearch
-
within clause 17. See also United States v. WurtzbargerSearch
-
Arlington Hotel v. FantSearch
-
with it exclusive jurisdiction by virtue of clause 17. The point was suggested by Justice Story in United States v. CornellSearch
-
Reference is made to statements in the general discussion in the opinion in Fort Leavenworth R. Co. v. LoweSearch
-
The terms of the cession in this respect governed the extent of the federal jurisdiction. See Surplus Trading Company v. CookSearch
-
of the wishes either of the owners or of the states, acquire the lands which it needs within their borders. Kohl v. UnitedSearch
-
Kohl v. UnitedSearch
-
with another state. It can hardly be doubted that, in giving consent, Congress may impose conditions. See Arizona v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Respondent urges the contrary. The tax is not laid upon the government, its property, or officers. Dobbins v. CommissionersSearch
-
Pet. 435, 41 U. S. 449 -450. The tax is not laid upon an instrumentality of the government. McCulloch v. MarylandSearch
-
Osborn v. BankSearch
-
Federal Land Bank v. CroslandSearch
-
Clallam County v. UnitedSearch
-
contractor. The tax is nondiscriminatory. The tax is not laid upon the contract of the government. Osborn v. BankSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court James v. DravoSearch
-
Hans Rees' Sons v. NorthSearch
-
Pollard v. HaganSearch
-
Gibson v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial