BALTIMORE NATIONAL BANK
v.
STATE TAX COMMISSION
BALTIMORE NATIONAL BANK
STATE TAX COMMISSION
296 U.S. 538
Supreme Court of the United States (1935)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 8 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam:
The appeal herein is dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Section 237 (a), Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of February 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 936, 937); Citizens National Bank v. Durr, 257 U. S. 99, 106; Jett Bros. Distilling Co. v. Carrollton, 252 U. S. 1, 6; Indian Territory Illuminating Co. v. Board of Equalization, 287 U. S. 573. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was allowed as a petition for writ of certiorari, § 237 (c), Judicial Code, as amended (43 Stat. 936, 938), the petition is granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Charleston Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Alderson, 324 U.S. 182 (U.S. 1945)…v. City of Carrollton, 252 U. S. 1; Citizens National Bank v. Durr, supra; Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co. v. Board of Equalization, 287 U. S. 573; Miller v. Board of County Comm’rs, 290 U. S. 586; Baltimore National Bank v. State Tax Comm’n, 296 U. S. 538; Irvine v. Spaeth, 314 U. S. 575; Memphis Gas Co. v. Beeler, 315 U. S. 649, 650; Commercial Credit Co. v. O’Brien, 323 U. S. 665; see Ex parte Williams, 277 U. S. 267, 272; cf. Reeves v. Williamson, 317 U. S. 593. Where it appears from the opinion…
-
Memphis Natural Gas Co. v. Beeler, 315 U.S. 649 (U.S. 1942)…es a taxpayer’s federal rights, privileges or immunities, will not sustain an appeal under § 237 (a). Jett Bros. Distilling Co. v. City of Carrollton, 252 U. S. 1; Miller v. City of Denver, 290 U. S. 586; Baltimore National Bank v. State Tax Comm’n, 296 U. S. 538; Irvine v. Spaeth, 314 U. S. 575. It is not enough that an appellant could have launched his attack upon the validity of the statute itself as applied; if he has [*651] failed to do so we are without jurisdiction over the appeal. The Judicial Code…
-
Wilson v. Cook, 327 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1946)…323 U. S. 665; Charleston Assn. v. Alderson, supra, 185, or, as here, upon a “tax,” Citizens National Bank v. Durr, supra, 106; Indian Territory Illuminating Co. v. Board of County Comm’rs, 287 U. S. 573; Baltimore National Bank v. State Tax Comm’n, 296 U. S. 538; Irvine v. Spaeth, 314 U. S. 575, or upon the attempt to collect a tax, Jett Bros. Co. v. City of Carrollton, supra. Since plaintiffs’ attack'is directed to the validity of the tax as laid, and not to the validity of the statute, as applied, we are…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jett Bros. Distilling Co. v. City of Carrollton, 252 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1920)
- Citizens Nat'l Bank of Cincinnati v. Durr, 257 U.S. 99 (U.S. 1921)
- Ex parte Williams, 287 U.S. 573 (U.S. 1932)
- Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co. v. Bd. of Equalization of Tulsa Cnty., 287 U.S. 573 (U.S. 1932)