Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Steward Mach. Co. Vs. Collector

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 24, 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

65 entries 12 linked 53 unlinked
Show
  1. Veazie Bank Vs. Fenno US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1869
  2. Knowlton Vs. Moore US Supreme Court · May 14, 1900
  3. Poe Vs. Seaborn US Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1930
  4. Florida Vs. Mellon US Supreme Court · Nov 23, 1926
  5. Ohio Oil Co. Vs. Conway US Supreme Court · Mar 05, 1929
  6. American Sugar Refining Co. Vs. Louisiana US Supreme Court · Nov 06, 1900
  7. Armour Packing Co. Vs. Lacy US Supreme Court · Jan 08, 1906
  8. Brown-forman Co. Vs. Kentucky US Supreme Court · May 16, 1910
  9. Swiss Oil Corp. Vs. Shanks US Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1927
  10. Bell's Gap R. Co. Vs. Pennsylvania US Supreme Court · Mar 03, 1890
  11. Quong Wing Vs. Kirkendall US Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1912
  12. West Coast Hotel Co. Vs. Parrish US Supreme Court · Mar 29, 1937
  13. U.S. 548 (1937) U.S. Supreme Court Steward Mach. Co. v. Collector
    Search
  14. U.S. 548 (1937) Steward Machine Co. v. Collector
    Search
  15. F.2d 207. The decision is in accord with judgments of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ( Howes Brothers Co. v. Massachusetts
    Search
  16. Unemployment Compensation Comm'n, December 30, 1936, 5 N.E.2d 720), the Supreme Court of California ( Gillum v. Johnson
    Search
  17. Cal.2d 744, 62 P.2d 1037), and the Supreme Court of Alabama ( Beeland Wholesale Co. v. Kaufman
    Search
  18. conflict with a judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, from which one judge dissented. Davis v. Boston
    Search
  19. no others were then known, that the forms then accepted were not subject to enlargement. Cf. Pensacola Telegraph Co. v. Western
    Search
  20. South Carolina v. United
    Search
  21. point is made as a distinction that a tax upon the use of male servants was thought of as a tax upon a luxury. Davis v. Boston
    Search
  22. Newton v. Atchison
    Search
  23. occasion to point out the other day, is only a bundle of rights and privileges invested with a single name. Henneford v. Silas
    Search
  24. considered as a unit is the power to tax any of them. The whole includes the parts. Nashville, C. & St.L. Ry. Co. v. Wallace
    Search
  25. throughout the United States. Together, these classes include every form of tax appropriate to sovereignty. Cf. Burnet v. Brooks
    Search
  26. Brushaber v. Union
    Search
  27. Pollock v. Farmers'
    Search
  28. Pacific Insurance Co. v. Soble
    Search
  29. S. 557 . There is no departure from that thought in later cases, but rather a new emphasis of it. Thus, in Thomas v. United
    Search
  30. property by inheritance or will, though the states and not Congress have created the privilege of succession. Knowlton v. Moore
    Search
  31. the enjoyment of a corporate franchise, though a state and not Congress has brought the franchise into being. Flint v. Stone
    Search
  32. this requirement. According to the settled doctrine the uniformity exacted is geographical, not intrinsic. Knowlton v. Moore
    Search
  33. Flint v. Stone
    Search
  34. Billings v. United
    Search
  35. Stellwagen v. Clum
    Search
  36. LaBelle Iron Works v. United
    Search
  37. Wright v. Vinton
    Search
  38. vitiating the tax. The Fifth Amendment, unlike the Fourteenth, has no equal protection clause. LaBelle Iron Works v. United
    Search
  39. to such a clause, are not confined to a formula of rigid uniformity in framing measures of taxation. Swiss Oil Corp. v. Shanks
    Search
  40. may tax some kinds of property at one rate, and others at another, and exempt others altogether. Bell's Gap R. Co. v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  41. Stebbins v. Riley
    Search
  42. operations of a particular kind of business, and exempt some other kind of business closely akin thereto. Quong Wing v. Kirkendall
    Search
  43. Heisler v. Thomas
    Search
  44. State Board of Tax Comm'rs v. Jackson
    Search
  45. a fortiori, in legislation by the Congress, which is subject to restraints less narrow and confining. Quong Wing v. Kirkendall
    Search
  46. of attack, the provisions being contained in the Unemployment Compensation Law of the State of Alabama. Carmichael v. Southern
    Search
  47. Coal & Coke Co., and Carmichael v. Gulf
    Search
  48. Treasury at Washington, and thereafter are subject to appropriation like public moneys generally. Cincinnati Soap Co. v. United
    Search
  49. and collateral good would be furthered as an incident, that, without more, would not make the act invalid. Sonzinsky v. United
    Search
  50. succumbs to an assault upon these lines, two propositions must be made out by the assailant. Cincinnati Soap Co. v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial