Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Flora Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 16, 1958

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

44 entries 4 linked 40 unlinked
Show
  1. Kings County Savings Institution Vs. Blair US Supreme Court · Jan 04, 1886
  2. Dodge Vs. Osborn US Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1916
  3. Allen Vs. Regents US Supreme Court · May 23, 1938
  4. United States Vs. Michel US Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1931
  5. Flora v. United
    Search
  6. States - 357 U.S. 63 (1958) U.S. Supreme Court Flora v. United
    Search
  7. States, 357 U.S. 63 (1958) Flora v. United
    Search
  8. We granted certiorari, 355 U.S. 881, to resolve the conflict between that decision and Bushmiaer v. United
    Search
  9. meaning of words employed. The principle of strict construction of waivers of sovereign immunity, United States v. Michel
    Search
  10. took the form of an action of assumpsit against the collector. Page 357 U. S. 67 See Philadelphia v. Diehl
    Search
  11. a), was considered in Cheatham v. United
    Search
  12. and that language included suits to obtain refund of income taxes. United States v. Emery
    Search
  13. to the Commissioner clearly applied to the Tucker Act cases, United States v. Michel
    Search
  14. A suit against the office or the successor in office of a deceased collector could not be maintained. Smietanka v. Indiana
    Search
  15. amount limitation of the Tucker Act in the special situation where the Collector could not be sued. See Lowe Bros. Co. v. United
    Search
  16. combine as persuasive indications that no change was intended in the full payment principle declared in Cheatham v. United
    Search
  17. Congress was concerned was the hardship of prelitigation payment, not post-litigation collection. Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner
    Search
  18. Court. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is Affirmed. MR. JUSTICE WHITTAKER, believing that Bushmiaer v. United
    Search
  19. Sirian Lamp Co. v. Manning
    Search
  20. F.2d 776, and Coates v. United
    Search
  21. Suhr v. United
    Search
  22. States, 18 F.2d 81. But cf. Sirian Lamp Co. v. Manning
    Search
  23. Sirian Lamp Co. v. Manning
    Search
  24. Coates v. United
    Search
  25. States, 111 F.2d 609. But cf. Bendheim v. Commissioner
    Search
  26. Elbert v. Johnson
    Search
  27. Initially, such suits depended upon diversity jurisdiction. Collector v. Hubbard
    Search
  28. See Lowe Bros. Co. v. United
    Search
  29. Pollock v. Farmers'
    Search
  30. E.g., Phillips v. Commissioner
    Search
  31. United States v. Jefferson
    Search
  32. U.S. Supreme Court Flora v. United
    Search
  33. and Bushmiaer v. United
    Search
  34. See Philadelphia v. Diehl
    Search
  35. Cheatham v. United
    Search
  36. United States v. Emery
    Search
  37. Smietanka v. Indiana
    Search
  38. Bushmiaer v. United
    Search
  39. and Coates v. United
    Search
  40. Suhr v. United
    Search
  41. Bendheim v. Commissioner
    Search
  42. Collector v. Hubbard
    Search
  43. Dobson v. Commissioner
    Search
  44. Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial