6 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1952–2021 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Richfield Oil Corp. v. State Board of Equalization
green
2 sentences2012Richfield, 329 U.S. at 71-72 , 67 S.Ct. 156 . ¶ 14 The Court accepted the determination of the California supreme court that the tax "is an excise tax for the privilege of conducting a retail business measured by the gross receipts from sales . . . and does not become a tax on the sale or because of the sale." Richfield, 329 U.S. at 83-84 , 67 S.Ct. 156 . 2012Richfield, 329 U.S. at 71-72 , 67 S.Ct. 156 . ¶ 14 The Court accepted the determination of the California supreme court that the tax "is an excise tax for the privilege of conducting a retail business measured by the gross receipts from sales . . . and does not become a tax on the sale or because of the sale." Richfield, 329 U.S. at 83-84 , 67 S.Ct. 156 . | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Lacey Nursing Center, Inc. v. Department of Revenue
green
1 sentence2021Lacey, 128 Wn.2d at 52-53 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Booker Auction Co. v. Department of Revenue
green
1 sentence2021The APA does not circumvent the legislature’s precisely governed system for obtaining superior court review of an excise tax challenge.” Booker, 158 Wn. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In Re the Estate of Eberle
green
1 sentence1989See former RCW 83.08.060; In re Estate of Eberle, 4 Wn. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
State v. City of Sheridan
neutral
2 sentences1952In Jensen v. Henneford, 185 Wash. 209 , 53 P. (2d) 607 , we said: “When a tax is, in truth, levied for the exercise of a substantive privilege granted or permitted by the state, the tax may be considered as an excise tax and sustained as such.” (p. 218.) (Italics ours.) In Power Inc. v. Huntley, 39 Wn. (2d) 191, 235 P. (2d) 173 , we said: “We recognize the right to levy an excise tax on the privilege of doing business or exercising corporate franchises and to base that tax on income; but the tax must be, ‘in truth, levied for the exercise of a substantive privilege granted or permitted by the 1952In Jensen v. Henneford, 185 Wash. 209 , 53 P. (2d) 607 , we said: “When a tax is, in truth, levied for the exercise of a substantive privilege granted or permitted by the state, the tax may be considered as an excise tax and sustained as such.” (p. 218.) (Italics ours.) In Power Inc. v. Huntley, 39 Wn. (2d) 191, 235 P. (2d) 173 , we said: “We recognize the right to levy an excise tax on the privilege of doing business or exercising corporate franchises and to base that tax on income; but the tax must be, ‘in truth, levied for the exercise of a substantive privilege granted or permitted by the | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Power, Inc. v. Huntley
green
1 sentence1952In Jensen v. Henneford, 185 Wash. 209 , 53 P. (2d) 607 , we said: “When a tax is, in truth, levied for the exercise of a substantive privilege granted or permitted by the state, the tax may be considered as an excise tax and sustained as such.” (p. 218.) (Italics ours.) In Power Inc. v. Huntley, 39 Wn. (2d) 191, 235 P. (2d) 173 , we said: “We recognize the right to levy an excise tax on the privilege of doing business or exercising corporate franchises and to base that tax on income; but the tax must be, ‘in truth, levied for the exercise of a substantive privilege granted or permitted by the | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Jensen v. Henneford
green
2 sentences1952In Jensen v. Henneford, 185 Wash. 209 , 53 P. (2d) 607 , we said: “When a tax is, in truth, levied for the exercise of a substantive privilege granted or permitted by the state, the tax may be considered as an excise tax and sustained as such.” (p. 218.) (Italics ours.) In Power Inc. v. Huntley, 39 Wn. (2d) 191, 235 P. (2d) 173 , we said: “We recognize the right to levy an excise tax on the privilege of doing business or exercising corporate franchises and to base that tax on income; but the tax must be, ‘in truth, levied for the exercise of a substantive privilege granted or permitted by the 1952In Jensen v. Henneford, 185 Wash. 209 , 53 P. (2d) 607 , we said: “When a tax is, in truth, levied for the exercise of a substantive privilege granted or permitted by the state, the tax may be considered as an excise tax and sustained as such.” (p. 218.) (Italics ours.) In Power Inc. v. Huntley, 39 Wn. (2d) 191, 235 P. (2d) 173 , we said: “We recognize the right to levy an excise tax on the privilege of doing business or exercising corporate franchises and to base that tax on income; but the tax must be, ‘in truth, levied for the exercise of a substantive privilege granted or permitted by the | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.