|
|
Cudahy Packing Co. v. Hinkle, 278 U.S. 460 (1929)
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.
Cudahy Packing Co. v. Hinkle, 278 U.S. 460 (1929)
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 278 U.S. 456, click here.
Cudahy Packing Co. v. Hinkle No. 278 Argued January 7, 1929 Decided February 18, 1929 278 U.S. 460
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
Syllabus
l. State taxation of a foreign corporation admitted to do business in a state, in the form of a filing fee and a license tax, both reckoned upon its authorized capital stock, held a burden on interstate commerce and an attempt to reach property beyond the jurisdiction of the state contrary to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, in a case where the property of the corporation within the state and the part of its business there transacted (less than half of it intrastate) were but small fractions, respectively, of its entire property and of its business transacted in other parts of the Union and abroad, and where the amount of capital stock authorized was much more than the amount of the stock issued and the value of the total assets. The laws imposing the taxes fixed maximum limits of $3,000.00 each, and the taxes actually demanded were $545.00 and $580.00, respectively. P. 465.
2. A state tax that really burdens the interstate commerce of a foreign corporation and reaches property beyond the state cannot be sustained upon the ground that it is relatively small. P. 466.
24 F.2d 124 reversed.
Appeal from a decree of a district court of three judges refusing an interlocutory injunction and dismissing the bill in a suit to enjoin state officials from proceeding to enforce penalties against the plaintiff foreign corporation for its failure to pay filing fees and license taxes prescribed by the state law.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Cudahy Packing Co. v. Hinkle, 278 U.S. 460 (1929) in 278 U.S. 460 278 U.S. 461–278 U.S. 462. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=VMNEA16IFHHU3JD.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Cudahy Packing Co. v. Hinkle, 278 U.S. 460 (1929), in 278 U.S. 460, pp. 278 U.S. 461–278 U.S. 462. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=VMNEA16IFHHU3JD.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Cudahy Packing Co. v. Hinkle, 278 U.S. 460 (1929). cited in 1929, 278 U.S. 460, pp.278 U.S. 461–278 U.S. 462. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=VMNEA16IFHHU3JD.
|