Legal Opinion
H. D. & J. K. Crosswell Inc. v. Jones
District Court, E.D. South Carolina
Decided October 2, 1931PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GLENN, District Judge.
The plaintiff, a corporation, has brought suit to recover income and excess profit ¿axes paid for the years 1918, 1919, and 1920. Pertinent provisions are sections 325, 326, 301, and 302 of the Revenue Act of 1918 (40‘ Stat. 1088, 1089, 1091, 1092). The facts have been stipulated, and there is no need to repeat most of them here. The question for decision is a very narrow one. The plaintiff originated as a partnership; this partnership had purchased certain contracts giving them rights of bottling and selling Coca-Cola in South Carolina. On March 1, 1915, the partnership…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- LaBelle Iron Works v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- Chicago City Railway Co. v. People ex rel. StoryIllinois Supreme Court · 1874
- Lincoln Street Railway Co. v. City of LincolnNebraska Supreme Court · 1901
- Given v. WrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1875
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Lindsay Drilling & Contracting v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1984
- United States v. Norman L. MatthewsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1979
- Commissioner v. Valley Morris PlanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1962
- Triple U Enterprises, Inc. v. New Hampshire InsuranceDistrict Court, D. South Dakota · 1983
- Pagliarulo v. National Shawmut BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1968
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.