Legal Opinion
Trusler v. Crooks
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided January 11, 1926No. 188PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice McReynolds
Plaintiff in error seeks to recover two hundred dollars paid for internal revenue stamps which, after due'protest, he affixed to a written “ privilege or option for a contract for the sale of grain in the form commonly known as an indemnity,” as required by § 3, “The Future Trading Act,” approved August 24, 1921, c. 86, 42 Stat. 187. If, as he insists, that section is beyond congressional power and therefore invalid, he must prevail; otherwise the judgment below must be affirmed.
That statute is entitled “An Act Taxing contracts for the sale of grain for future delivery, and options for such…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Hill v. WallaceSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Child Labor Tax CaseSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Lipke v. LedererSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Linder v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Chas. Wolff Packing Co. v. Court of Industrial Relations of KansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
3Cited by10 opinions
- United States v. KahrigerSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
- Board Of Trade Of The City Of Chicago v. Securities And Exchange CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1982
- P. E. Harris & Co. v. MullaneyDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 1949
- Board of Trade v. Securities & Exchange CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1982
- Minchem Int'l v. Comm'rUnited States Tax Court · 2015
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.