green
Positive treatment
Issue: stare decisis is a salutary one doctrineTN ↗
Issue: unconstitutional presumptionIA ↗
Quoted verbatim 2×
7.3 score
“congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment, and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. thus limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion.”
Treatment trajectory · 1900 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1900
1963
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Hopkins
congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment, and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. thus limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hunton v. Commonwealth
And that a devise of the rents and profits or of the income of lands passes the land itself both at law and in equity. 1 Jarm. on Wills (5th Ed.) 798, and cases cited.” Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429, 580 , 15 S. Ct.. 673, 689, 39 L.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
A. T. Jergins Trust v. Commissioner
Chief Justice Fuller, in discussing that question, stated, at page 580 of 157 U. S., 15 S. Ct. 673, 689, 39 L.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Porto Rico Coal Co. v. Edwards
Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429, 573, 574 , 15 Sup. Ct. 673, 39 L.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Eliasberg Bros. Mercantile Co. v. Grimes
Ed. 1108 , Id., 157 U. S. 429 , 15 Sup. Ct. 673, 39 L.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Shaffer v. Howard
In what has been said above in reference to the character of an income tax being in the nature of an excise or privilege levy, the two decisions in the case of Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. ( 157 U. S. 429 , 15 Sup. Ct. 673, 39 L.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gouge v. Hart
Co., 157 U. S. 429, 431, 433, 554 , 15 Sup. Ct. 673, 39 L.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Mosely v. State
R., 134, it was held that a tax on income received from interstate commerce was a tax upon the. commerce itself, and therefore unauthorized.” 157 U. S., 429, 581, 582 , 15 Sup. Ct., 673, 39 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Dept. of Rev. v. Wakefield
See Bittker & Lokken, Federal Taxation of Income, Estates and Gifts, ¶ 1.2 (explain- ing theories of origin of constitutional prohibition against “direct” taxes without apportionment, challenge to pre-Sixteenth Amendment income tax in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 US 429 , 15 S Ct 673 , 39 L Ed 759 (1895), origin of Sixteenth Amendment).
cited
Cited "see"
Florida Ex Rel. McCollum v. United States Department of Health & Human Services
See generally Pollock v. Fanners’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 , 15 S.Ct. 673 , 39 L.Ed. 759 (1895).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Benson
See Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 , 15 S.Ct. 673 , 39 L.Ed. 759 (1895).
discussed
Cited "see"
Fairbanks, Morse & Co. v. Harrison
See Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 , 15 S.Ct. 673, 691 , 39 L.Ed. 759 , where the court said: “* * * But we think the same want of power to tax the property or revenues from the states or their instrumentalities exists in relation to a tax on the income from their securities, and for the same reason; and that reason is given by Chief Justice Marshall, in Weston v. Charleston, 2 Pet. 449, 468 , 27 U.S. 449, 468 [ 7 L.Ed. 481, 488 ] where he said: ‘The right to tax the contract to any extent, when made, must operate on the power to borrow before it is exercised, and hav…
discussed
Cited "see"
M. Witmark & Sons v. Fred Fisher Music Co.
(2×)
See Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 1895, 157 U.S. 429 , 15 S.Ct. 673 , 39 L.Ed. 759 .
cited
Cited "see"
Ellicott Machine Corp. v. Vogt Bros. Mfg.
See Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U. S. 574 , 15 Sup. Ct. 673, 39 L.
cited
Cited "see"
Hyams v. Calumet & Hecla Mining Co.
See Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429, 553 , 15 Sup. Ct. 673, 39 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Carriere & Son v. United States
(2×)
See, by way of illustration, Lutcher v. United States, 157 U. S. 427 , 15 Sup. Ct. 718, 39 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Robert Gordon v. Eric Holder, Jr.
Hansard ed., 1813) (“[T]he British Parliament have no right to tax the Americans.... [Tjaxation and representation are inseparable — this position is founded on the laws of nature; ... for whatever is a man’s own, is absolutely his own; no man has a right to take it from him without his consent, either expressed by himself or representative-”); see also Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 556 , 15 S.Ct. 673 , 39 L.Ed. 759 (1895) (“The men who framed and adopted [the Constitution] had just emerged from the struggle for independence whose rallying cry had been that �…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation v. Schwarzenegger
See also Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 588 , 15 S.Ct. 673 , 39 L.Ed. 759 (1895) (Field, L, concurring) ("Direct taxes. in a general and large sense, may be described as taxes derived immediately from the person, or from real or personal property, without any recourse therefrom to other sources for reimbursement.”), superseded by U.S. Const. amend.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Ronald Gary Watts in Re Yee Kome Kathy Watts, Debtors, Phillip J. Wolfson v. Ronald Gary Watts Yee Kome Kathy Watts
(2×)
The Federalist No. 78, at 471 (Alexander Hamilton) (Clinton Rossiter ed. 1961) (“To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them.... ”); see also, e.g., Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 652 , 15 S.Ct. 673 , 39 L.Ed. 759 (1895) (White, J., dissenting) (“The fundamental conception of a judicial body is that of one hedged about by precedents which are binding on the court without regard to the pe…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Fielding v. Allen
See, e. g., Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 553 , 15 S.Ct. 673 , 39 L.Ed. 759 ; Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 143 , 28 S.Ct. 441 , 52 L.Ed. 714 , 13 L.R.A.,N.S., 293, 14 Ann.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lutcher
v.
United States
v.
United States
271.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 8, 1895.
Mr. J. L. Bradford for plaintiffs in error., Mr. Solicitor General for defendants in error.
The Chief Justice:.
Cited by 6 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Federal Circuit (1) · D. New Mexico (1)
The Chief Justice:
This was an action brought by the United States in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Texas against the firm of Lutcher & Moore of that district, doing a milling and manufacturing business at Orange, Texas, to recover damages for cutting, carrying away, and converting to their own use certain timber, the property of the United States. Judgment was rendered in favor of the United States March 11, 1891. April 3, 1891, a writ of error was allowed from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The record does not disclose what proceedings were had thereon in that court. July 2, 1891, a writ of error from this court was sued out and filed, the bond thereon being approved and the citation signed July 10, 1891. The petition for the allowance of the writ states that the Circuit Court of Appeals refused to allow the cause to be docketed and the transcript of record to be filed therein, on the ground that the cause should have been taken to this court and not to that court. But the last clause of section six of the Judiciary Act of March 3, 1891, refers to the Circuit Court of Appeals and not to the Circuit Court, and this writ of error is to the Circuit Court and not to the Circuit Court of Appeals, and does not, therefore, reach the proceedings in the latter court. ¥e perceive no ground on which this court has jurisdiction to review the judgment of the Circuit Court on this writ, and, moreover, it'was brought too late. Cincinnati Safe and Lock Co. v. Grand Rapids Deposit Co., 146 U. S. 54. Either objection is fatal.
Writ of error dismissed.