Legal Opinion

Asmer v. LIVINGSTON

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided May 11, 1954No. 16867PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Oxner, Justice.

Respondent, a retail liquor dealer in the City of Columbia, seeks an adjudication that under Section 65-1268 of the 1952 Code, he is entitled to a refund of $3,680.94, representing the amount of tax stamps affixed to certain aleo holic beverages in his place of business which, as the result of a fire, were either totally destroyed or so badly damaged as to be unfit for sale. The Tax Commission, appellant here, demurred to the complaint upon the ground that a refund under the Code section mentioned can only be made to the holder of a valid wholesaler’s license. The Court below…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Arrott v. Allegheny CountySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  2. City of Spartanburg v. LeonardSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1936
  3. Daniel v. RichcreekCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1938
  4. People Ex Rel. Herlihy Mid-Continent Co. v. NudelmanIllinois Supreme Court · 1938
  5. Hadden v. South Carolina Tax CommissionSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1937

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. TNS Mills, Inc. v. South Carolina Department of RevenueSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1998
  2. SunTrust Bank, Nashville v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2000
  3. Furman University v. LivingstonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1964
  4. Edisto Fleets, Inc. v. South Carolina Tax CommissionSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1971
  5. Roper v. South Carolina Tax CommissionSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1957

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API