Legal Opinion
Waldron v. Poe
District Court, W.D. Washington
Decided October 6, 1924No. 384PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtNeterer, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above). Under section 3224, R. S. (§ 5947, C. S.), “no suit for the purpose of restraining an assessment for collection of any tax shall be .maintained in any court.”
It is urged by the defendant that the remedy of the plaintiff is at law “ * * * to pay all taxes and sue to recover it back.” Graham v. Du Pont, 262 U. S. 234, 43 S. Ct. 567, 67 L. Ed. 965; Roebling v. Sturgess (D. C.) 292 F. 1012. The' complainant urges nonobligation on his part, insisting that it is his fundamental right, guaranteed by the Constitution, that no person shall be “deprived of * * *…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Graham v. Du PontSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. OsborneSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Bashara v. HopkinsDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 1921
- Regal Drug Corp. v. WardellCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1921
- Roebling v. SturgessDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1923
3Cited by4 opinions
- Cannon v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1946
- Hubbard Inv. Co. v. BrastCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1932
- Filipowicz v. RothensiesDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1940
- Pearson, Collector of Taxes v. LaughlinCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1951