Web Results

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brushaber_v._Union_Pacific_Railroad_Co.

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the validity of a tax statute called the Revenue Act of 1913, also known as the Tariff Act, Ch. 16, 38 Stat. 166 (October 3, 1913), enacted pursuant to Article I, section 8, clause 1 of, and the ...

supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/case.html

Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company. No. 140. Argued October 14, 15, 1915. Decided January 24 ... Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429. In this case -- that of a stockholder against a corporation to restrain the latter from voluntarily paying the  ...

supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1

Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company. No. 140. Argued October 14, 15, 1915. Decided January 24 ... Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429. In this case -- that of a stockholder against a corporation to restrain the latter from voluntarily paying the  ...

famguardian1.org/Subjects/Taxes/CourtCases/BrushaberVUnionPacRR240US1.htm

Mar 14, 2010 ... Mr. Brushaber owned stock in the Union Pacific Railroad, a corporation chartered in the federal Territory of Utah before it became a State. ... This was the same justice who wrote the dissenting opinion in the Pollock Decision back in 1895, which incidentally declared the income tax unconstitutional.

caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/240/1.html

BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., (1916). No. 140. Argued: Decided: January 24, 1916. [240 U.S. 1, 2] Messrs. Julien T. Davies, Brainard Tolles, Garrard Glenn, and Martin A. Schenck for ... To put out of the way a question of jurisdiction we at once say that in view of these averments and the ruling in Pollock v.

www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chapter1.htm

Chapter 1: The Brushaber Decision. Historically, defensive federal officials have argued that the 16th Amendment is constitutional because the Supreme Court of the United States has said so. In the year 1916, the high court issued a pivotal decision which is identified in the case law as Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad ...

www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/157/429

Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Company (No. 898). Argued: March 7, 8. 11, 12, 13, 1895. Decided: April 8, 1895. ___. Syllabus; Opinion, Fuller; Separate, .... Representatives and direct taxes shall [p436] be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective ...

www.innocencerevealed.com/innocence_revealed/references/Court_Cases/POLLOCK_V_FARMERS_1895.pdf

POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN. DISTRICT OF NEW ...... Union Pacific Railroad,. 91 U.S. 72; American Net & Twine Co. v. Worthington, 141 U.S. 468;. Collector v. Day, 11 Wall. 113; United States v. Railroad.

www.tax-freedom.com/WhatYouNeed.htm

“As a stockholder of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, the appellant filed his bill to enjoin the corporation from complying with the income tax provisions of the ... carefully taken their “cues” from the Court itself in the Pollock v Farmers Loan & Trust Co. case, on how to write income tax legislation that would, in the future, ...