Citation network
Atlantic Refining Co. Vs. Virginia
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Nov 08, 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
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 22 (1937) U.S. Supreme Court Atlantic Refining Co. v. VirginiaSearch
-
U.S. 22 (1937) Atlantic Refining Co. v. VirginiaSearch
-
foreign corporations seeking the same privilege within the State. P. 302 U. S. 31 . 6. Cudahy Packing Co. v. HinkleSearch
-
statute was challenged under similar circumstances and sustained by a unanimous Court in General Railway Signal Co. v. VirginiaSearch
-
U. S. 500 , and, in 1928, was again sustained by a per curiam opinion in Western Gas Construction Co. v. VirginiaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
cases. It asserts that, in sustaining the Virginia statute, this Court followed views expressed in Baltic Mining Co. v. MassachusettsSearch
-
U. S. 87 , and that the doctrine of the Baltic case has since been repudiated, in Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. MassachusettsSearch
-
U. S. 203 , 268 U. S. 218 , and Cudahy Packing Co. v. HinkleSearch
-
does not govern the corporation's conduct after admission. But it may be assumed that the rule declared in Terral v. BurkeSearch
-
right to engage in intrastate commerce in Virginia unless it has secured the consent of the State. Compare Hemphill v. OrloffSearch
-
that sum would seem to be legally immaterial, and the company is in a position like that of the taxpayer in Castillo v. McConnicoSearch
-
Home Insurance Co. v. NewSearch
-
Kansas City, Fort Scott & Memphis Ry. Co. v. BotkinSearch
-
U. S. 227 , 240 U. S. 233 . Compare Ray Consolidated Copper Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
not dependent upon, or confined to, the place where the assets are located. Compare Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. GrosjeanSearch
-
The difference in the powers of a State over entrance fees and taxes was pointed out in Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. HardingSearch
-
the company in the case at bar differs radically from that of the foreign corporation involved in Cudahy Packing Co. v. HinkleSearch
-
This prohibition was sustained in Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. VirginiaSearch
-
This is true of Cudahy Packing Co. v. HinkleSearch
-
Ludwig v. WesternSearch
-
Union Tel. Co., 216 U. S. 1 46, and also of Looney v. CraneSearch
-
increased filing fee applicable to the extension of the license. The exactions involved in International Paper Co. v. MassachusettsSearch
-
U. S. 146 , and Air-Way Electric Appliance Corp. v. DaySearch
-
were annual franchise taxes applicable only after the corporation had been duly admitted. In Cheney Bros. Co. v. MassachusettsSearch
-
U. S. 147 , and Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. MassachusettsSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Atlantic Refining Co. v. VirginiaSearch
-
Western Gas Construction Co. v. VirginiaSearch
-
Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. MassachusettsSearch
-
and Cudahy Packing Co. v. HinkleSearch
-
Terral v. BurkeSearch
-
of the State. Compare Hemphill v. OrloffSearch
-
Compare Ray Consolidated Copper Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Compare Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. GrosjeanSearch
-
of Cudahy Packing Co. v. HinkleSearch
-
of Looney v. CraneSearch
-
and Air-Way Electric Appliance Corp. v. DaySearch
-
In Cheney Bros. Co. v. MassachusettsSearch
-
and Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. MassachusettsSearch
-
Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. VirginiaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial