Legal Opinion

Successors of C. & J. Fantanzzi v. Municipal Assembly of Arroyo

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Decided February 5, 1924No. 1617PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JOHNSON, Circuit Judge.

The facts which require consideration in this case are in substance as follows: Section 3 of the Organic Act of Porto Rioo, known as the Jones Act (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 3803aaa), is as follows:

“That no export duties shall be levied or collected on exports from Porto Rico, but taxes and assessments on property, internal revenue, and license fees, and royalties for franchises, privileges, and concessions may be imposed for the purposes of the insular and municipal governments, respectively, as may be provided and defined by tbe Legislature of Porto…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Patton v. BradySupreme Court of the United States · 1902
  2. Southern Express Co. v. Rose Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1906
  3. Ex parte SimsSupreme Court of Florida · 1898
  4. Canova v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Florida · 1899

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. A. J. Tristani, Sucrs., Inc. v. Municipio de MayagüezSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1954
  2. San Miguel & Cía., Inc. v. Diez de AndinoSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1950
  3. Cami v. Central Victoria, Ltd.Supreme Court of the United States · 1925
  4. Fajardo Development Co. v. CamachoSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1926
  5. Pueblo v. IrizarrySupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1934

15 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