Citation network
Wilson Vs. Cook
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 04, 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
-
U.S. 474 (1946) U.S. Supreme Court Wilson v. CookSearch
-
U.S. 474 (1946) Wilson v. CookSearch
-
The purpose of this requirement is to restrict our mandatory jurisdiction on appeal, Memphis Gas Co. v. BeelerSearch
-
state has first been apprised that a state statute is being assailed as invalid on federal grounds, Charleston Assn. v. AldersonSearch
-
or, when the statute, as applied, is so assailed, until it has opportunity authoritatively to construe it. Fiske v. KansasSearch
-
statute, as construed and applied, has either been presented for decision to the highest court of the state, Wall v. ChesapeakeSearch
-
Citizens Nat. Bank v. DurrSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
or has in fact been decided by it, Nickey v. MississippiSearch
-
S. 431 , 297 U. S. 435 -436, and that its decision was necessary to the judgment. Cuyahoga River Power Co. v. NorthernSearch
-
of a state statute under the laws and Constitution of the United States. Charleston Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. AldersonSearch
-
be passed on from the taxpayer to the Government by reason of the effect of the tax paid by the severers, citing James v. DravoSearch
-
Contracting Co., 302 U. S. 134 , and Alabama v. KingSearch
-
independently of the Page 327 U. S. 482 constitutionality of a statute, see Nashville, C. & St.L. Ry. v. BrowningSearch
-
levied, or to show that the validity of the tax alone has been considered. Charleston Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. AldersonSearch
-
of an appeal. Jett Bros. Distilling Co. v. CitySearch
-
an appeal will not be sustained where there has been only an attack upon a tax assessment, Jett Bros. Distilling Co. v. CitySearch
-
Miller v. BoardSearch
-
Memphis Gas Co. v. BeelerSearch
-
Commercial Credit Co. v. O'BrienSearch
-
Charleston Assn. v. AldersonSearch
-
Citizens' National Bank v. DurrSearch
-
Indian Territory Illuminating Co. v. BoardSearch
-
Baltimore National Bank v. StateSearch
-
Irvine v. SpaethSearch
-
U.S. 575, or upon the attempt to collect a tax, Jett Bros. Distilling Co. v. CitySearch
-
No. 329. We can consider only the federal questions passed upon by the state Supreme Court. Our decision in James v. DravoSearch
-
Contracting Co., supra, and in Alabama v. KingSearch
-
the taxpayer. They contend that the Act thus purports to place a forbidden tax directly on the United States. Cf. Mayo v. UnitedSearch
-
that our decision of the issue raised there would not necessarily decide that now sought to be raised. Compare Dewey v. DesSearch
-
New York ex rel. Cohn Page 327 U. S. 484 v. GravesSearch
-
U. S. 308 , 300 U. S. 317 , and cases cited. For, as we said in McGoldrick v. CompagnieSearch
-
Keokuk & Hamilton Bridge Co. v. IllinoisSearch
-
New York v. KleinertSearch
-
is a federal question, since upon their construction depend rights, powers and duties of the United States. Mason Co. v. TaxSearch
-
Compare Mason Co. v. TaxSearch
-
Atkinson v. StateSearch
-
Collins v. YosemiteSearch
-
Stewart & Co. v. SadrakulaSearch
-
powers reserved to the United States by the Constitution. Ft. Leavenworth R. Page 327 U. S. 488 Co. v. LoweSearch
-
Utah Power & Light Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
the constitutional provision, and there has been no cession of the jurisdiction by the state. Surplus Trading Co. v. CookSearch
-
Mason Co. v. TaxSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial