|
|
Ex Parte Bransford, 310 U.S. 354 (1940)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Ex Parte Bransford, 310 U.S. 354 (1940)
Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 310 U.S. 344, click here.
Ex Parte Bransford No. ___, Original Argued April 23, 1940 Decided May 20, 1940 310 U.S. 354
dg:syll*
Syllabus
1. Mandamus is proper to review error of a district court in refusing to call in additional judges, under Jud.Code § 266, in a suit praying an interlocutory injunction against state officers. P. 355.
2. The application for mandamus may be made by one of several defendants. P. 356.
3. A suit by a national bank to enjoin the collection of a state tax is not a suit to restrain the enforcement of a statute of the State "upon the ground of the unconstitutionality of such statute," within the meaning of Jud.Code § 266, where the bill makes no attack upon the state legislation involved, but alleges that state officials have misconstrued it and have made an assessment which is unconstitutional because excessive and discriminatory and which is also invalid because it discriminates against national bank shares in violation of R.S. § 5219, and includes preferred shares of the bank owned by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which are exempt under the Act of Congress of March 20, 1936. P. 357.
A petition for an injunction on the ground of the unconstitutionality of a statute as applied, which requires a three-judge court, is to be distinguished from one based on the alleged unconstitutionality of the result obtained by the use of a statute which is not attacked as unconstitutional. The latter does not require a three-judge court, its attack being aimed at allegedly erroneous administrative action.
Motion denied.
On a motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus and on the respondent’s return to a rule to show cause.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Ex Parte Bransford, 310 U.S. 354 (1940) in 310 U.S. 354 310 U.S. 355. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=I5PJ4XH3G9HJAJ1.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Ex Parte Bransford, 310 U.S. 354 (1940), in 310 U.S. 354, page 310 U.S. 355. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=I5PJ4XH3G9HJAJ1.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Ex Parte Bransford, 310 U.S. 354 (1940). cited in 1940, 310 U.S. 354, pp.310 U.S. 355. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=I5PJ4XH3G9HJAJ1.
|