Redwine v. United States Tobacco Co.
Supreme Court of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Wyatt, Justice.
The question here presented is whether or not the activities of the defendant in error as disclosed by the petition amount to “doing business” in Georgia in the sense of the language used in the Georgia Income Tax Act (Ga. L., Ex. Sess., 1931, p. 24). In so far as the activities of the defendant in error as disclosed by the foregoing statement of facts are concerned, this case is clearly controlled by the rulings in Suttles v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co., 206 Ga. 849 (59 S. E. 2d, 392), and Redwine v. Dan River Mills, 207 Ga. 381 (61 S. E. 2d, 771). In both of those cases, the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Montag Bros. v. State Revenue CommissionCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1935
- Redwine v. Dan River Mills, Inc.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1950
- Suttles v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1950
- Montag Bros. v. State Revenue CommissionSupreme Court of Georgia · 1936
3Cited by15 opinions
- Novak v. RedwineCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1954
- Lamex, Inc. v. Sterling Extruder Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1964
- STERLING MATERIALS COMPANY, INC. v. McKinleySupreme Court of Georgia · 1963
- Buckhead Doctors' Building, Inc. v. Oxford Finance Companies, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1967
- Smith v. Ford Gum & MacHine Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1954
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.