Legal Opinion

Superior Bath House Co. v. McCarroll

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided February 3, 1941No. 180PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Black

By a 1929 Act, Arkansas imposed a tax of 2% on the net income of domestic corporations “with respect to *177carrying on or doing business” in the state.1 Appellant, a corporation organized under Arkansas law, leases from the United States and operates for profit a bath house on the federal reservation at Hot Springs. Whether appellant is subject to the state tax depends on the interpretation of the language of a provision of a Congressional Act of 1891 and the corresponding provision of an Arkansas Act of 1903. The Congressional Act reads: “The consent of the United States is hereby given for the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Henneford v. Silas Mason Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1937
  2. Collins v. Yosemite Park & Curry Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
  3. Buckstaff Bath House Co. v. McKinleySupreme Court of the United States · 1939
  4. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md. v. ArenzSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
  5. Ex parte GainesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1892

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Mescalero Apache Tribe v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. Kiker v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
  3. Union Oil Co. v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
  4. Hicks v. Castille, Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)2010
  5. Mester v. Brevard (In Re Brevard)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · 1996

10 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