Legal Opinion

Cumberland Pipe Line Co. v. Lewis

District Court, E.D. Kentucky

Decided September 14, 1926No. 5:05-misc-00011PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ANDREW M. J. COCHRAN, District Judge.

This is a three judge ease. The interlocutory injunction sought is, in the main, to restrain the enforcement of the assessment of plaintiff’s franchise for taxation for the year 1924, made April 29, 1925, as of date December 31,1923, under section 4077 et seq., Kentucky Statutes.

The procedure followed was that required by section 4079. The value of plaintiff’s capital stock was first fixed. The assessed value of its tangible property was then deducted from such value; and the remainder was the sum at which plaintiff’s franchise was assessed. The value at…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Taylor v. SecorSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
  2. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. v. BabcockSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
  3. Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. GreeneSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
  4. South Utah Mines & Smelters v. Beaver CountySupreme Court of the United States · 1923
  5. Henderson Bridge Co. v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1895

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. v. Prince William CountySupreme Court of Virginia · 1970
  2. City of Detroit v. Detroit & Canada Tunnel Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1937
  3. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. Board of Public WorksDistrict Court, S.D. West Virginia · 1933
  4. Parsons v. Detroit & Canada Tunnel Co.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1936
  5. Texas Co. v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1946

3 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