Citation network
New York Rapid Transit Corp. Vs. New York
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 28, 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
- Relied / Followed
-
New York Rapid Transit Corp. v. NewSearch
-
York - 303 U.S. 573 (1938) U.S. Supreme Court New York Rapid Transit Corp. v. NewSearch
-
York, 303 U.S. 573 (1938) New York Rapid Transit Corp. v. CitySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
volume of transactions in a business to cost of its supervision and protection by government. Stewart Dry Goods Co. v. LewisSearch
-
related to the object of the legislation, are sufficient to justify the classification. German Alliance Ins. Co. v. LewisSearch
-
Atchison, T., S. & F. R. Co v. MatthewsSearch
-
Rast v. VanSearch
-
Borden's Co. v. BaldwinSearch
-
Metropolitan Casualty Co. v. BrownellSearch
-
Magoun v. IllinoisSearch
-
Carmichael v. SouthernSearch
-
of equality has ever been enforced upon the states. Bell's Gap R. Co. v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
U. S. 662 . A state may exercise a wide discretion in selecting the subjects of taxation ( Magoun v. IllinoisSearch
-
Heisler v. ThomasSearch
-
Ohio Oil Co. v. ConwaySearch
-
treatment related to such distinctions. Carriers may be treated as a separate class ( compare Seaboard Air Line v. SeegersSearch
-
U. S. 73 ) and, as such, taxed differently or additionally. Southern R. Co. v. WattsSearch
-
rates for railroads differing from those on other property, and as between railroad taxpayers, Michigan Central R. Co. v. PowersSearch
-
Columbus & G. Ry. Co. v. MillerSearch
-
corporations to a special or higher income tax than individuals or other corporations. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. DaughtonSearch
-
See New York Steam Corp. v. CitySearch
-
which might properly have been taken into account by the City's Legislature. See Carmichael v. SouthernSearch
-
See Great Atlantic & Pac. Tea Co. v. GrosjeanSearch
-
Fox v. StandardSearch
-
for a particular sub-class of utility. See Great Atlantic & Pac. Tea Co. v. GrosjeanSearch
-
Cohn v. GravesSearch
-
relation to the cost of governmental supervision and protection than the annual profit and loss statement. In Clark v. TitusvilleSearch
-
of engaging in that occupation. Western Live Stock v. BingamanSearch
-
Maine v. GrandSearch
-
U. S. 228 . Reliance is placed upon certain language of the opinion in Stewart Dry Goods Co. v. LewisSearch
-
P. 301 U. S. 522 . See also Cincinnati Soap Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
is the revenue to be raised by the acts. In Colgate v. HarveySearch
-
In Stebbins v. RileySearch
-
U. S. 137 , Royster Guano Co. v. VirginiaSearch
-
U. S. 412 , and Air Way Electric Appliance Corp. v. DaySearch
-
as having a fair and substantial relation to a constitutional nonfiscal object ( Alaska Fish Salting & By-Products Co. v. SmithSearch
-
Aero Mayflower Transit Co. v. GeorgiaSearch
-
but it is not constitutionally necessary that the classification be related to the appropriation. In United States v. ButlerSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial