Legal Opinion
Buckstaff Bath House Company v. McKinley, Commr.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Decided April 10, 1939No. 4-5435PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGriffin Smith, C. J.
Appellant denies it is subject lo the provisions of Act No. 155, approved February 26, 1937, 1 and refused to pay the tax alleged by appellees to be due for the 1937 calendar year.
Injunctive relief was sought to prevent E. I. McKinley, as Commissioner of the Department of Labor, and W. A. Booksberry, as Director of the Division of Unemployment Compensation of the [Arkansas] Department of Labor, from levying and collecting assessments provided for by the act. Appellant insists that, although it is an Arkansas corporation, its place of business is within the United States Government Beservation…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Steward MacHine Co. v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Metcalf & Eddy v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- James v. Dravo Contracting Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Railroad Co. v. PenistonSupreme Court of the United States · 1873
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Waterbury Savings Bank v. DanaherSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1940
- Hickenbottom v. McCain, Comm'r of LaborSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1944
- In Re Oshkosh Foundry Co.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1939
- Industrial Commission v. Woodlawn Cemetery Ass'nWisconsin Supreme Court · 1939
- McKinley, Comm'r of Lab. v. Payne Son Lbr.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1940
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.