Legal Opinion
Lake Superior Consolidated Iron Mines v. Lord
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided June 7, 1926No. 336, 355, 388, 389, 390, 391, and 471PublishedCited by 44 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice McReynolds
By their several bills in the United States District Court, appellants alleged the invalidity of Chapter 226, Laws of Minnesota, approved April 11, 1923, because of conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment and the State .Constitution. They sought to prevent its enforcement. ’That court held' the enactment valid and, by decrees en tered January 15, 1925, dismissed the bills. These appeals followed.
The challenged Act (fourteen sections), effective from its passage, provides—
“ Sec. 1. There shall be levied and collected upon all ■royalty received during the year ending.December 31, 1923, and upon…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Bell's Gap Railroad v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Von Baumbach v. Sargent Land Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Heisler v. Thomas Colliery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Oliver Iron Mining Co. v. LordSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- State Ex Rel. Inter-State Iron Co. v. ArmsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
3Cited by44 opinions
- Carpenter v. ShawSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- Hope Natural Gas Co. v. Hall, State Tax CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Dickinson v. PorterSupreme Court of Iowa · 1948
- Reed v. BjornsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1934
- Idaho Gold Dredging Co. v. BalderstonIdaho Supreme Court · 1938
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.