Legal Opinion · Dissent

Arkansas-Louisiana Pipe Line Co. v. Coverdale

District Court, W.D. Louisiana

Decided April 15, 1935No. 615Published

1DissentHutcheson, Circuit Judge

(Dissenting) .

The primary purpose of the statute appears to have been to impose a license tax upon the production of power. It thus imposed not a property, but an -excise or privilege, tax. Union Sulphur Co. v. Reid (D.C.) 17 F.Supp. 27, this day decided. State ex rel. Porterie v. Hunt, 182 La. 1073, 162 So. 777, 103 A.L.R. 9; Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 U.S. 124, 50 S.Ct. 46, 74 L.Ed. 226.

The majority concludes that, because the tax is a privilege, and not a property, tax, and falls on the generation by complainant of power, used in part to gather gas into and in part to transport it through…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  2. Coe v. ErrolSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  3. UTAH POWER & LIGHT CO. v. PFOST, COMMISSIONER OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States · 1932
  4. Oliver Iron Mining Co. v. LordSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
  5. Bromley v. McCaughnSupreme Court of the United States · 1929

13 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