State Tax Comm'n v. Pac. States Cast Iron Pipe Co., 372 U.S. 605 (1963). · Go Syfert
Search
State Tax Comm'n v. Pac. States Cast Iron Pipe Co., 372 U.S. 605 (1963). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2000 · …state may levy and collect a sales tax, since the passage of title and delivery to the purchaser took place within the state. ✓
80 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 19 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: TPL, Inc. v. New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Department (nm, 2002-12-19)
Treatment trajectory · 1963 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1963 1994 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) TPL, Inc. v. New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Department (2×)
N.M. · 2002 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence low
here a vendor sells property, and passage of title and delivery occurs in the vendor state, that state can levy and collect the sales tax on that transaction.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) TA Operating Corp. v. State, Department of Revenue (3×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see · quote attribution · 3 verbatim quotes · confidence high
state may levy and collect a sales tax, since the passage of title and delivery to the purchaser took place within the state.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Montgomery Ward & Co. v. State Board of Equalization
Cal. Ct. App. · 1969 · confidence medium
(Harvester Co. v. Department of Treasury (1944) 322 U.S. 340 , 345-346 [ 88 L.Ed. 1313 , 1317-1318, 64 S.Ct. 1019 ], and see the thoughtful and penterating concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Butledge [concurring also with General Trading Co. and dissenting from Dilworth] 322 U.S. at p. 349 , particularly p. 362 [88 L.Ed. at p. 1319, particularly p. 1326], See also Shell Oil Co. v. State Board, of Equalization (1966) 64 Cal.2d 713, 724 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 524 , 414 P.2d 820 ] [app. dismissed (1967) 386 U.S. 211 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 870 , 87 S.Ct. 973 ]]; Utah Tax Com. v. Pacific Pipe Co. (1963) 372 U.S. 605,…
discussed Cited "see" W. J. Seufert Land Co. v. National Restaurant Supply Co. (2×)
Or. · 1973 · signal: see · confidence high
See Graybar Electric Co. v. Curry, supra, and Commissioner of Corporations and T. v. Ford Motor Co., supra. See also Utah Tax Comm’n v. Pacific Pipe Co., 372 US 605 , 83 S Ct 925 , 10 L ed 2d 8 (1963).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Tummurru Trades, Inc. v. Utah State Tax Commission (3×)
Utah · 1990 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., State Tax Comm’n of Utah v. Pacific States Cast Iron Pipe Co., 372 U.S. 605, 606 , 83 S.Ct. 925, 925 , 10 L.Ed.2d 8 (1962) (states may levy and collect sales taxes where passage of title and delivery to the purchaser took place within the state); International Harvester Co. v. Department of Treasury, 322 U.S. 340 , 345, 64 S.Ct. 1019 , 1021, 88 L.Ed. 1313 (1944). 12 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." American Airlines, Inc. v. Department of Revenue (2×)
Ill. · 1974 · signal: see also · confidence low
Ed. 673, 675 , 52 S. Ct. 340, 341 ; see Sinclair Refining Co. v. Department of Revenue, 50 Ill.2d 201, 206 ; see also State Tax Commission of Utah v. Pacific States Cast Iron Pipe Co., 372 U.S. 605 , 10 L.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Sinclair Refining Co. v. Department of Revenue (2×)
Ill. · 1971 · signal: see also · confidence low
Ed. 673, 675 , 52 S. Ct. 340, 341 ; see also State Tax Com. of Utah v. Pacific States Cast Iron Pipe Co., 372 U.S. 605 , 10 L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
State Tax Commission of Utah
v.
Pacific States Cast Iron Pipe Co.
178.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 1, 1963.
372 U.S. 605
F. Burton Howard, Assistant Attorney General of Utah, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was A. Pratt Kesler, Attorney General., C. M. Gilmour argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 27 opinions  |  Published
2 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 89%
Citer courts: District Court of Appeal of Fl… (3) · New Mexico Supreme Court (2)
Per Curiam.

Respondent, a Nevada corporation qualified to do business in Utah, manufactures cast-iron pipe and related items in Provo, Utah, and sells its products throughout the Western States. Prices set by respondent are for the goods delivered at a specific job site, and interstate delivery is usually made by common carrier or in respondent’s own equipment. The sales here involved occurred in a different manner. In each case the material was manufactured to meet the specifications of specific out-of-state jobs. The contract called for out-of-state shipment, and respondent set a destination price which included the going common carrier freight charges between the two points involved. But delivery was made[*606] and title passed to the purchaser at respondent’s foundry-in Provo. The purchaser then transported the pipe with its own equipment to the predetermined out-of-state destination. The common carrier tariff was credited to the purchaser.

The Utah Tax Commission imposed upon respondent a sales tax deficiency covering these sales.

The Supreme Court of Utah reversed the Tax Commission, on the grounds that the certainty of interstate shipment made the imposition of the tax on these shipments unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. 13 Utah 2d 113, 369 P. 2d 123. We reverse its judgment on the authority of International Harvester Co. v. Department of Treasury, 322 U. S. 340, 345, which holds on facts close to those of this case that a State may levy and collect a sales tax, since the passage of title and delivery to the purchaser took place within the State.

Reversed.