Citation network
Freeman Vs. Hewitt
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 16, 1946
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
-
U.S. 249 (1946) U.S. Supreme Court Freeman v. HewittSearch
-
U.S. 249 (1946) Freeman v. HewittSearch
-
burden on interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause. Pp. 329 U. S. 252 -259. 2. McGoldrick v. Berwind-WhiteSearch
-
Harvester Co. v. DepartmentSearch
-
Gross Income Tax Act of 1933, which has been before this Court in a series of cases beginning with Adams Mfg. Co. v. StorenSearch
-
even without implementing legislation by Congress, is a limitation upon the power of the States. Southern Pacific Co. v. ArizonaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Morgan v. VirginiaSearch
-
S.C. Hwy. Dept. v. BarnwellSearch
-
is a fashion in judicial writing, as in other things. Page 329 U. S. 255 This case, like Adams Mfg. Co. v. StorenSearch
-
a State from giving the manufacturing part detached relevance for purposes of local taxation. American Mfg. Co. v. CitySearch
-
Utah Power & L. Co. v. PfostSearch
-
can impose license taxes on domestic and foreign corporations who would do business in the State, Cheney Brothers Co. v. MassachusettsSearch
-
St. Louis Southwestern Ry. v. ArkansasSearch
-
interstate commerce. Western Union Tel. Co. v. KansasSearch
-
State and measure the privilege by net income, including that derived from interstate commerce. United States Glue Co. v. OakSearch
-
Atlantic Coast Line v. DoughtonSearch
-
sold interstate are securities, they can be reached by a property tax by the domicil of the owner. Virginia v. ImperialSearch
-
U. S. 256 Sales Co., 293 U. S. 15 , 293 U. S. 19 , and see Citizens National Bank of Cincinnati v. DurrSearch
-
tax. It has been urged that the force of the decision in the Adams case has been sapped by McGoldrick v. Berwind-WhiteSearch
-
Coal Mining Co., 309 U. S. 33 . The decision in McGoldrick v. Berwind-WhiteSearch
-
unapportioned tax on gross receipts which has been definitely held beyond the State taxing power ever since Fargo v. MichiganSearch
-
U. S. 230 , and Philadelphia & S. M. Steamship Co. v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
U. S. 326 . See also, e.g., Galveston, Harrisburg & S.A. R. Co. v. TexasSearch
-
Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. Ry. v. BotkinSearch
-
Puget Sound Stevedoring Co. v. TaxSearch
-
Commission, 302 U. S. 90 , 302 U. S. 94 , and compare Wallace v. HinesSearch
-
by a Page 329 U. S. 258 State will be allowed if it directly affects interstate commerce. Robbins v. ShelbySearch
-
Taxing Dist., 120 U. S. 489 , 120 U. S. 494 . Nor is American Mfg. Co. v. CitySearch
-
of St. Louis, 250 U. S. 459 , or International Harvester Co. v. DeptSearch
-
in measuring the license fee. That tax, then, unlike this, was not, in fact, a tax on gross receipts. Cf. Cornell v. CoyneSearch
-
within the State, which was the basis for sustaining the tax in International Harvester Co. v. DeptSearch
-
case. It was by this distinction that the Supreme Court of Indiana sought to escape the authority of Adams Mfg. Co. v. StorenSearch
-
South Australia v. CommonwealthSearch
-
itself. Whether the Court now intends simply to qualify or to repudiate entirely, except in result, Adams Mfg. Co. v. StorenSearch
-
will strike down state taxes in a great variety of forms sustained consistently of late. Not since Cooley v. BoardSearch
-
as to regulate, interstate commerce. This has been held through various lines of decision extending back to Gibbons v. OgdenSearch
-
from state restrictions and barriers against it which the clause was adopted to prevent. But, at any rate since Cooley v. BoardSearch
-
Indiana tax now in issue or to afford protection against multiple levies the risk of which was held in Adams Mfg. Co. v. StorenSearch
-
whether the tax brings the forbidden results. See the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Stone in Di Santo v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
These matters are often interrelated, cf. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. KansasSearch
-
Its presence cannot be the controlling consideration for validating the tax. Nippert v. RichmondSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial