Legal Opinion

State v. Dr. Pepper Bottling Co.

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided March 27, 1934No. 2 Div. 525PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

A decision of this ease calls for the legal construction of Schedule 185 of the Revenue Laws of Alabama 1929, p. 315, which is as follows: “Wholesale soft drinks: — Each person other than bottlers operating plants in this State who are otherwise licensed, engaged in the business of selling at wholesale nonalcoholic, carbonated or other soft drinks, shall pay an annual license of fifty dollars.”

In order to properly interpret the meaning and application of the foregoing statute, it will be necessary, of course, to consider the nature of the business in which the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. Roden Coal Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1916
  2. Yarbrough Bros. Hardware Co. v. PhillipsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1923
  3. State v. H. G. Fain Service StationAlabama Court of Appeals · 1929
  4. Williams v. PughAlabama Court of Appeals · 1930
  5. Carruth v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1931

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Williams v. City of DadevilleAlabama Court of Appeals · 1950
  2. State v. Dr. Pepper Bottling Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1934
  3. State v. GreenCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1979
  4. Scotch Lumber Company v. HornSupreme Court of Alabama · 1956

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API