Legal Opinion

Chicago, M., St. P. &. P. R. v. Hedges

District Court, W.D. Washington

Decided December 14, 1933No. Nos. 511E-514E, 517EPublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

NE.TERER, District Judge.

These -eases have been consolidated for hearing upon the applications for interlocutory injunction and upon the motions to disr miss. The relief sought by each is .to restrain the defendants from enforcing or collecting the excise tax of 1% per cent, of complainants’ gross receipts from intrastate business, as provided by chapter 191, p. 869, Laws of Washington, 1933, an act relating to taxation. The allegations jn all of the bills of eomplaiut are similar!' ■ . ‘ .

*754An understanding of the background of the various complainants with relation to the interstate commerce…

2Cases cited45 opinions

  1. Cohens v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1821
  2. Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
  3. Myers v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
  4. Block v. HirshSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
  5. Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. In Re PlumerDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1935
  2. United States v. Pacific Forwarding Co.District Court, W.D. Washington · 1934
  3. Walker v. Home Owners' Loan Corp.District Court, S.D. California · 1938

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API