Citation network
Kern Limerick, Inc. Vs. Scurlock
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 08, 1954
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. 110 (1954) U.S. Supreme Court Kern Limerick, Inc. v. ScurlockSearch
-
U.S. 110 (1954) Kern Limerick, Inc. v. ScurlockSearch
-
of the Government as purchaser was not merely colorable, and did not leave the contractor the real purchaser. Alabama v. KingSearch
-
authority to buy the tractors, it could not, under the Procurement Act of 1947, delegate this power to WHMS. Parker v. Kern-LimerickSearch
-
only colorable, and left the contractor the real purchaser and the transaction subject to the Arkansas tax. Alabama v. KingSearch
-
of the Federal Government from state exactions rests, of course, upon unquestioned authority. From McCulloch v. MarylandSearch
-
Wheat. 316, through Gillespie v. OklahomaSearch
-
U. S. 501 , and New York ex rel. Rogers v. GravesSearch
-
but also for the agencies and Page 347 U. S. 118 salaries of persons that carried on the work. James v. DravoSearch
-
of Government in relation to its purchases of commodities was left open. Id. at 302 U. S. 153 . Graves v. NewSearch
-
York ex rel. O'Keefe, 306 U. S. 466 , overruled New York ex rel. Rogers v. GravesSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
supra, and Gillespie, supra, fell in Oklahoma Tax Comm. v. TexasSearch
-
S. 342 , 336 U. S. 365 . A phase of the question reserved in the Dravo case came up in Alabama v. KingSearch
-
Cook v. SoutheastSearch
-
Muschany v. UnitedSearch
-
Dameron v. BrodheadSearch
-
See Hodgson v. DexterSearch
-
Larson v. DomesticSearch
-
Cf. United States Shipping Board Merchants Fleet Corp. v. HarwoodSearch
-
New Jersey Realty Title Ins. Co. v. DivisionSearch
-
Richfield Oil Corp. v. StateSearch
-
United States v. AlleghenySearch
-
Union Pacific R. Co. v. PublicSearch
-
Dyer v. SimsSearch
-
National Metropolitan Bank v. UnitedSearch
-
See Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. TexasSearch
-
Alabama v. KingSearch
-
Carson v. Roane-AndersonSearch
-
Mayo v. UnitedSearch
-
Pittman v. HomeSearch
-
to delegate to private persons power to buy goods for the Government and pledge its credit to pay for them. Alabama v. KingSearch
-
cite here. I think the Supreme Court of Arkansas was right in sustaining the State's tax on authority of Alabama v. KingSearch
-
In doing so, it moves back in the direction of discredited tax immunities like that sustained in the case of Gillespie v. OklahomaSearch
-
Government. Arkansas has not tried to collect the tax from the United States, and it clearly could not do so. See Mayo v. UnitedSearch
-
it falls there because the Government assumed it by contract, not because Arkansas placed it there. See Curry v. UnitedSearch
-
is on the United States. When Congress has not spoken, that determination must be made by the Court. In Alabama v. KingSearch
-
the States for revenue, the holder of a cost-plus government contract should be immune from state taxation. Alabama v. KingSearch
-
James v. DravoSearch
-
Graves v. NewSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Kern Limerick, Inc. v. ScurlockSearch
-
WHMS. Parker v. Kern-LimerickSearch
-
From McCulloch v. MarylandSearch
-
Gillespie v. OklahomaSearch
-
Rogers v. GravesSearch
-
Oklahoma Tax Comm. v. TexasSearch
-
Dyer v. SimsSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial