Legal Opinion · Dissent

Brodhead v. Borthwick

Hawaii Supreme Court

Decided March 4, 1946No. Nos. 2581 AND 2583Published

1Dissent

OPINION OP

LE BARON, J.

(Concurring in part and dissenting in part.)

The defendant in error, hereinafter referred to as the taxpayer, under protest paid two privilege taxes to the Territory of Hawaii, pursuant to the “General Excise Tax Law” popularly known as the “Gross Income Tax Act.” (Act 141, S. L. 1935, as amended, now §§ 5441-5482, R. L. H. 1945.) One tax was levied and collected by the plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as the tax commissioner, upon the taxpayer’s gross proceeds of or gross income derived from sales, made for the use and consumption of various federal…

2Cases cited33 opinions

  1. Metcalf & Eddy v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
  2. James v. Dravo Contracting Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1937
  3. Alabama v. King & BoozerSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
  4. Federal Land Bank of St. Paul v. Bismarck Lumber Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
  5. South Carolina v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1905

28 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