Citation network
United States Vs. County of Allegheny
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 01, 1944
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
-
United States v. CountySearch
-
of Allegheny - 322 U.S. 174 (1944) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. CountySearch
-
of Allegheny, 322 U.S. 174 (1944) United States v. CountySearch
-
function at the same time and in the same territory. Page 322 U. S. 176 In arguing the case of McCulloch v. MarylandSearch
-
created a government-owned corporation, and erected a plant which would have been wholly tax immune. Clallam County v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
create or permit, all present questions of federal law not controlled by the law of any state. Clearfield Trust Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Jackson County v. UnitedSearch
-
Utah Power & Light Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. AnsoniaSearch
-
D'Oench, Duhme & Co. v. FederalSearch
-
Federal Land Bank v. BismarckSearch
-
and establish their priority over subsequent purchasers or lienors irrespective of state recording acts. Detroit Bank v. UnitedSearch
-
fees for their use, the recording may not be made the occasion for taxing the Government property. Federal Land Bank v. CroslandSearch
-
Pittman v. HomeSearch
-
was a naked title and a nominal interest, the whole value was taxable to the equitable owner. Northern Pacific R. Co. v. MyersSearch
-
New Brunswick v. UnitedSearch
-
upon to deal with involved assertion of a right to tax Government property against an individual. In United States v. RickertSearch
-
were likewise immune from taxation. In Van Brocklin v. TennesseeSearch
-
had been laid against an interest of the Government which was beyond the reach of state taxing power. See also Irwin v. WrightSearch
-
Lee v. OsceolaSearch
-
Congress. v. OurSearch
-
out of Mesta's property, it is in a position to challenge the validity of the tax, as was the case in Van Brocklin v. TennesseeSearch
-
See Dobbins v. CommissionersSearch
-
Collector v. DaySearch
-
Osborn v. BankSearch
-
Choctaw, O. & Gulf R. Co. v. HarrisonSearch
-
Federal Land Bank v. CroslandSearch
-
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. TexasSearch
-
Leloup v. PortSearch
-
Indian Motorcycle Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Panhandle Oil Co. v. MississippiSearch
-
Graves v. TexasSearch
-
See Alabama v. KingSearch
-
Graves v. NewSearch
-
James v. DravoSearch
-
Helvering v. MountainSearch
-
Alabama v. KingSearch
-
the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is right, and should be affirmed for the reasons stated in its opinion. If James v. DravoSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court United States v. CountySearch
-
of McCulloch v. MarylandSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial