Miller Lumber Company v. Floyd
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Opinion of the Court
Hart, J.,
(after stating the facts.) This is the second appeal in this case. As above stated, the opinion on the former appeal is reported in 160 Ark. 17, under the style Floyd v. Miller Lumber Company. Counsel for appellants say that the original complaint was drafted with a view of raising the sole issue -of the constitutionality of the Severance Tax Act. The Legislature of 1923 passed an act to levy ia privilege or license tax upon all persons, firms, -and corporations engaged in the business of severing our natural resources from the soil or water. General Acts of Arkansas, 1923, p. 67.
Appe…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Hart Steel Co. v. Railroad Supply Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Oliver Iron Mining Co. v. LordSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Fortenberry v. FrazierSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1843
- Floyd v. Miller Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1923
- Taliaferro v. BarnettSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1886
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Phillips Petroleum Company v. HeathSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1973
- Landers v. JamesonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2003
- Sparling v. Refunding BoardSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1934
- Bedell v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1976
- Potter v. EasleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1986
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.