Citation network
Allen Vs. Regents
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 23, 1938
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. 439 (1938) U.S. Supreme Court Allen v. RegentsSearch
-
U.S. 439 (1938) Allen v. RegentsSearch
-
it is exercising a governmental power does not render the activity immune from federal taxation. In South Carolina v. UnitedSearch
-
notwithstanding the State had established the dispensary system in the valid exercise of her police power. In Ohio v. HelveringSearch
-
of liquor. Relief was denied, and the views expressed in the South Carolina case were reaffirmed. In Helvering v. PowersSearch
-
reason of its nature, the federal taxing power would normally extend. The legislation considered in South Carolina v. UnitedSearch
-
functions withdraws the business from the field of federal taxation. Under the test laid down in Helvering v. GerhardtSearch
-
public exhibitions for which an admission fee is charged. Page 304 U. S. 453 The opinion in South Carolina v. UnitedSearch
-
Constitution does not extend to business enterprises conducted by the States for gain. As was said in South Carolina v. UnitedSearch
-
Compare Helvering v. TherrellSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Philadelphia Company v. StimsonSearch
-
Compare Shannopin Country Club v. HeinerSearch
-
Lafayette Worsted Co. v. PageSearch
-
Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. BowersSearch
-
Wourdack v. BeckerSearch
-
Builders' Club of Chicago v. UnitedSearch
-
Miller v. StandardSearch
-
P. 199 U. S. 455 .) Compare Board of Trustees of University of Illinois v. UnitedSearch
-
what it says, or that the suit is not one to restrain collection of the tax. I can only conclude, as I did in Miller v. StandardSearch
-
Gouge v. HartSearch
-
Ralston v. HeinerSearch
-
Calkins v. SmietankaSearch
-
Seaman v. GuarantySearch
-
Miller v. NutSearch
-
Cheatham v. UnitedSearch
-
Compare Anniston Mfg. Co. v. DavisSearch
-
the purpose of federal taxation, its work of education to the level of selling intoxicating liquor ( South Carolina v. UnitedSearch
-
Ohio v. HelveringSearch
-
U. S. 360 ), operating a railway ( Helvering v. PowersSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Allen v. RegentsSearch
-
In South Carolina v. UnitedSearch
-
In Ohio v. HelveringSearch
-
In Helvering v. PowersSearch
-
South Carolina v. UnitedSearch
-
Helvering v. GerhardtSearch
-
Bernardin v. ButterworthSearch
-
Builders' Club of Chicago v. UnitedSearch
-
Compare Board of Trustees of University of Illinois v. UnitedSearch
-
Helvering v. PowersSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial