Valentine v. Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Co Same v. Graham Department Stores Co Same v. Walgreen Co
| Decision Date | 09 November 1936 |
| Docket Number | 14,Nos. 13,15,s. 13 |
| Citation | 299 U.S. 32,81 L.Ed. 22,57 S.Ct. 56 |
| Parties | VALENTINE et al. v. GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO. SAME v. GRAHAM DEPARTMENT STORES CO. et al. SAME v. WALGREEN CO. et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Iowa.
Messrs. Edw. L. O'Connor, of Des Moines, Iowa, Frank F. Messer, of Iowa City, Iowa, and W. E. Wallace, of Williamsburg, Iowa, for appellants.
Mr. J. G. Gamble, of Des Moines, Iowa, for appellees.
Appellees brought these suits to restrain the enforcement of a statute of Iowa known as the Chain Store Tax Act of 1935, Acts 46th Gen.Assem. c. 75 (Iowa Code of 1935, c. 329-G1, § 6943-g1 et seq.). The District Court, composed of three judges, held that the provision of section 4, subdivision b, of the Act (Code 1935, § 6943-g4, subd. b), imposing a tax based on gross receipts from sales according to an accumulative graduated scale, was invalid under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States as creating an arbitrary discrimination. 12 F.Supp. 760. The case comes here upon direct appeal from a final decree granting a permanent injunction. 28 U.S.C. 380 (28 U.S.C.A. § 380).
The decree is affirmed upon the authority of Stewart Dry Goods Co. v. Lewis, 294 U.S. 550, 55 S.Ct. 525, 79 L.Ed. 1054.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice STONE took no part in the consideration of decision of this case.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
California Co. v. State
...the gross receipts taken in by them. Both of the exactions were based upon graduated formulae. In Valentine v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 1936, 299 U.S. 32, 57 S.Ct. 56, 81 L.Ed. 22, the gross receipts phase of the statute was struck These two decisions provoked a profusion of text-w......
-
Volusia County Kennel Club v. Haggard
...matter how slight the gradient or moderate the tax." The Stewart case was followed by the case of Valentine v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 1936, 299 U.S. 32, 57 S.Ct. 56, 81 L.Ed. 22. That case involved tax on certain types of retail stores based upon an accumulated graduated scale. T......
-
Southern Boulevard R. Co. v. City of New York, 78.
...Co. v. Chicago, 228 U.S. 61, 33 S.Ct. 441, 443, 57 L.Ed. 730; but cf. Stewart Dry Goods v. Lewis, supra; Valentine v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 57 S.Ct. 56, 81 L.Ed. ___, decided Nov. 9, 1936. Nor must they be measured precisely by the benefits to be derived by the taxpayer (Georgia......
-
City of Tampa v. Birdsong Motors, Inc.
...to this opinion. See Stewart Dry Goods Co. v. Lewis, 294 U.S. 550, 55 S.Ct. 525, 79 L.Ed. 1054 (1935), and Valentine v. Walgreen Co., 299 U.S. 32, 57 S.Ct. 56, 81 L.Ed. 22 (1936). This decision is prospective only, is not retroactive and affords no remedy for taxes previously paid by person......
-
How Many Times Was Lochner-era Substantive Due Process Effective? - Michael J. Phillips
...doing same business). 54. Binney v. Long, 299 U.S. 280, 291, 293-95 (1936) (state succession tax); Valentine v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 299 U.S. 32, 33 (1936) (graduated state tax on gross receipts of chain stores); Stewart Dry Goods Co. v. Lewis, 294 U.S. 550, 555-60 (1935) (sales tax o......
-
The Road to Bush v. Gore:1 the History of the Supreme Court's Use of the Per Curiam Opinion
...Co. v. South Carolina, 282 U.S. 187, 192 (1930). 38. Id*. at 192-93. 39. See, e.g.*, Valentine v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co., 299 U.S. 32, 33 (1936)("Mr. Justice Brandeis and Mr. Justice Cardozo dissent."); Cate v. Beasley, 299 U.S. 30, 32 (1936)("Mr. Justice Reynolds is of opinion ......