Legal Opinion
Gillis v. California
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided November 5, 1934No. 28PublishedCited by 43 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice McReynolds
California laws make it unlawful for any person to act as a distributor of motor vehicle fuel without first obtaining a license from the Board of Equalization and executing bond conditioned to pay taxes and observe other requirements. Statutes 1923, 571; Ibid. 1931, c. 85,105; c. 86, 119; c. 793, 1652; c. 997, 2001; c. 1082, 2288.
“ Distributor ” includes persons, firms and corporations refining, manufacturing or producing motor oil and distributing it within the state.
Section 65, Jud. Code, (Title 28 U. S. C., § 124; Act of March 3, 1887, c. 373, § 2, 24 Stat. 554; Aug. 13, 1888, c. 866, § 3,…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Ex Parte RobinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Bessette v. W. B. Conkey Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Michaelson v. United States Ex Rel. Chicago, St. P., M. & OR Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
- In Re TylerSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Erb v. MoraschSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by43 opinions
- Hillis Motors, Inc. v. Hawaii Automobile Dealers' Ass'nCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
- Jordine v. WallingCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1950
- Palmer v. Webster and Atlas Nat. Bank of BostonSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- In The Matter Of Quanta Resources Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1984
- In Re Stable Mews Associates, Inc.United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 1984
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.