green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
18.8 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1938 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1938
1982
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
G. Fish v. Twp of Lower Merion, Aplt.
(4×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
the city tax is a levy on sales, the state tax is a levy imposed for the privilege of conducting a particular kind of business, albeit the amount of the tax is measured by gross sales.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Williams, L., Aplts v. City of Phila
(4×)
Drug Co. v. City of Pittsburgh , 358 Pa. 454 , 457-58, 57 A.2d 849 , 850-51 (1948) (differentiating a municipal mercantile license tax from the state foreign corporate franchise and corporate net income taxes, although all applied to "businesses"); Blauner's, Inc. , 330 Pa. at 346 , 198 A. at 892 (determining that a City sales tax did not duplicate a state mercantile license tax, since the City taxed sales whereas the Commonwealth taxed the privilege of conducting business, notwithstanding that both taxes were measured by gross receipts). 14 Notably, the Court has observed that matters that ar…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Williams, L., Aplts v. City of Phila
(2×)
Drug Co. v. City of Pittsburgh, 358 Pa. 454, 457-58 , 57 A.2d 849, 850-51 (1948) (differentiating a municipal mercantile license tax from the state foreign corporate franchise and corporate net income taxes, although all applied to “businesses”); Blauner’s, Inc., 330 Pa. at 346 , 198 A. at 892 (determining that a City sales tax did not duplicate a state mercantile license tax, since the City taxed sales whereas the Commonwealth taxed the privilege of conducting business, notwithstanding that both taxes were measured by gross receipts).14 Notably, the Court has observed that matters that …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Philadelphia Beverage Association v. City of Philadelphia and Frank Breslin, in His Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Philadelphia Department of Revenue
(2×)
Id. at 526-28 .20 In Blauner’s, Inc., 198 A. at 891, the Supreme Court held that a City ordinance imposing a sales tax did not “invade the field pre-empted by the Commonwealth” under a capital stock tax because “the ordinance taxes neither the (continued…) shall not be collected more than once in respect to any bottled soft drink or soft drink syrup manufactured, sold, used or distributed in this State.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wilkinsburg Borough v. Wilkinsburg Borough School District
There is no question as to the legálity, under the authority granted by the Act of 1947, of the tax imposed *257 by the borough on the privilege of attending any amusement, or as to the right of the borough to compel all persons, co-partnerships, associations and corporations within its jurisdiction to act as its agents in collecting the tax: (Blauner’s, Inc. v. Philadelphia, 330 Pa. 340, 347, 348 , 198 A. 889 , 892).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hixon v. City of Philadelphia
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in the very recent case of Blauner’s, Inc., et al., v. City of Philadelphia et al., 330 Pa. 340, 342 (1938), upheld the validity of the city sales tax as applied to sales by corporations, and dismissed the argument that, because the State had already taxed corporate net incomes, the Act of 1932 prohibited such a city tax on sales by corporations.
cited
Cited "see"
Dakoski v. Urda
See Blauner’s, Inc. v. Philadelphia, 330 Pa. 342 , 198 A. 889 (1938); Wilson v. Philadelphia School District, 328 Pa. 225 , 195 A. 90 (1937).
cited
Cited "see"
Mellon Square Garage, Inc. v. Public Parking Authority
See Blauner’s Inc. v. Philadelphia, supra at 345, 198 Atl. at 891 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Murray v. Philadelphia
See generally, Blauner's, Inc., v. Phila., 330 Pa. 342 , 198 A. 889 (1938); Philadelphia v. Samuels, 338 Pa. 321 , 12 A. 2d 79 (1940); Federal Drug Co. v. Pittsburgh, 358 Pa. 454 , 57 A. 2d 849 (1948); Lawrence Twp.
discussed
Cited "see"
Allegheny County Motor Co. v. Pittsburgh
But, actually, the tax, as Section 34 (a) of the Act discloses, was “upon the gross receipts from all sales of tangible-personal property, consisting of goods, wares, or merchandise” for “the privilege of engaging in business as a retailer”, — -veritably the same as a mercantile license tax, as the latter has frequently been recognized by both “this Court and the Superior Court . . .”: see Blauner’s, Inc., v. Philadelphia, 330 Pa. 342, 346 , 198 A. 889 , and cases there cited; also Puntureri v. Pittsburgh School District, supra. In the Welsh case, supra, the Director of Taxatio…
discussed
Cited "see"
Philadelphia v. Samuels
Mr. Justice Maxey did not participate in the decision of these appeals. , L ■ 1 The legislative power to delegate the right to tax is settled: see Blauner’s, Inc., v. Phila., 330 Pa. 342, 344 , 198 A. 889 . 2 This Act was considered in Peoples Natural Gas Co. v. Pittsburgh, 317 Pa. 1 , 175 A. 691 . 3 Act of May 16, 1935, P. L. 208, as amended, 12 PS section 3420a et seq. 4 See Kelley v. Kalodner, 320 Pa. 180, 186 , 181 A. 598 ; Turco Paint & Varnish Co. v. Kalodner, 320 Pa. 421 , 184 A. 37 ; Blauner's, Inc., v. Philadelphia, 330 Pa. 342, 345 , 198 A. 889 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Garcia, D., Aplt. v. Foot Locker
As this Court has explained regarding the predecessor statutes,12 Pennsylvania law “places upon the vendors at retail sales . . . the duty of collection and remission of the sales tax.” Commonwealth v. Shafer, 202 A.2d 308, 311 (Pa. 1964); see also Blauner’s v. City of Phila., 198 A. 889 , 892 (Pa. 1938) (discussing Commonwealth’s power to impose duty of tax collection upon merchants).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Garcia, D., Aplt. v. American Eagle
As this Court has explained regarding the predecessor statutes,12 Pennsylvania law “places upon the vendors at retail sales . . . the duty of collection and remission of the sales tax.” Commonwealth v. Shafer, 202 A.2d 308, 311 (Pa. 1964); see also Blauner’s v. City of Phila., 198 A. 889 , 892 (Pa. 1938) (discussing Commonwealth’s power to impose duty of tax collection upon merchants).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. Morris
(4×)
Compare Blauner’s Inc. v. City of Phila., 198 A. 889 , 893, 330 Pa. 340 (1938) (common law definitions irrelevant where statute contains its own definition); Kohn v. City of Phila., 151 Pa.Super. 635 , 30 A.2d 672, 675 (1943) (“None of these cases [reciting common law definitions of ‘sale’] has any relevancy-here where ‘sale’ is defined by the ordinance.”).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Swatara Township v. Automatic Bowling Centre, Inc.
See, e.g., Blauner’s, Inc. v. Philadelphia, 330 Pa. 342 , 198 Atl. 889 (1938); Turco Paint & Varnish Co. v. Kalodner, 320 Pa. 421 , 184 Atl. 37 (1936).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Swatara Twp. v. AUTO. BOWLING C., INC.
See, e.g., Blauner's, Inc. v. Philadelphia, 330 Pa. 342 , 198 Atl. 889 (1938); Turco Paint & Varnish Co. v. Kalodner, 320 Pa. 421 , 184 Atl. 37 (1936).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Northern Pennsylvania Power Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
(2×)
See also, Blauner's Inc. et al. v. Phila., 330 Pa. 340 , 198 A. 889 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
N. Pa. Power Co. v. Pa. P.U.C.
(2×)
See also, Blauner's Inc. et al. v. Phila., 330 Pa. 340 , 198 A. 889 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Blauner’s, Inc., Et Al., Appellants,
v.
Philadelphia Et Al.; Wilson Et Ux., Appellants, v. Philadelphia Et Al.
v.
Philadelphia Et Al.; Wilson Et Ux., Appellants, v. Philadelphia Et Al.
Appeals, 195, 200 and 201.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Mar 21, 1938.
Paul Freeman , of Freeman, Fox Steeble , with him Simon Pearl , for appellants, in No. 195.
Lemuel B. Schofield , with him W. Bradley Ward , for appellants, in Nos. 200 and 201.
Robert T. McCracken , with him George G. Chandler , for Receiver of Taxes, appellee.
Abraham Wernick , with him G. Coe Farrier , Assistant City Solicitors, and Joseph Sharfsin , City Solicitor, for City of Philadelphia, appellee.
M. J. S. Stoney , for amicus curiæ.
Carlos Berguido, Jr. , with him Ira Jewell Williams, Townsend Munson, Robert V. Massey, Jr., J. Harry LaBrum, Bertram K. Wolfe, H. Eugene Heine, George V. Strong, John J. McDevitt, Jr., Boyd Lee Spahr, Barnes, Biddle Myers and Brown Williams , for amici curiae.
Cubiam, Kephart, Schaffer, Maxet, Drew, Linn, Stern, Barnes.
Cited by 25 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (2)
Pee Cubiam,
We find no foundation for the objections to the enforcement of the City Sales Tax Ordinance made, on the[*342] one hand, by the plaintiff: appellants, and, on the other, by briefs filed under Bule 61 on behalf of the Philadelphia Bestaurant Managers’ Association, and the Club Managers’ Association.
In each appeal the decree is affirmed at appellants’ costs. An opinion will be filed in due course by Mr. Justice Drew stating the reasons for this conclusion.