Hodge v. Muscatine County
Citations
- 196 U.S. 276
- 25 S. Ct. 237
- 49 L. Ed. 477
- 1905 U.S. LEXIS 900
Syllabus
<p>If the taxpayer be given an opportunity to test the validity of a tax at any time before it is made final, either before a board having quasi judicial character, or a tribunal provided- by the State for that purpose, due process is not denied, and if he does not avail himself of the opportunity to present his defense to such board or' tribunal, it is not for this court to determine whether such defense is valid.</p> <p>A State may reserve to itself the right to tax or prohibit the sale of cigarettes, and while this court is not bound by the construction given to a statute by the highest court of the State as to whether a tax is or isiaot a license to sell it will accept it unless clearly of the opinion fjiatit is wrong.</p> <p>Section 5007, Iowa Code, imposing a tax against every person and upon the real property and the owner thereof whereon cigarettes are sold does not give a license to sell cigarettes, nor is it invalid as depriving the owner of \\the property of his property without due process of law, because it does not provide for giving him notice of the tax, §§ 2441, 2442, Iowa Code, providing for review with power to remit by the board of supervisors.</p> <p>Whether or not a state .statute violates the state constitution in not stating distinctly the tax and the object to which it is to be applied is a local and not a-Federal question.</p> <p>A tax to carry on a business may be made a lien on the property whereon the business is carried and the owner is presumed to know the business there carried on and to have let the property with knowledge that it might be encumbered by a tax on. such business.</p>
Judges: Brown, Brewer, Peckham
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
39 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Connecticut v. DoehrSupreme Court· 1991-06-06· cited 497×
- Murphy v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1926-12-06· cited 85×
- State ex rel. Wilcox v. RyderSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1914-06-12· cited 53×
- Chase v. Proprietors of the Revere HouseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1919-02-01· cited 44×
- In Re the Tax Appeal of Hawaiian Land Co.Hawaii Supreme Court· 1971-08-06· cited 39×
- People v. SkinnerCalifornia Supreme Court· 1941-07-30· cited 39×
- Florida Ex Rel. McCollum v. United States Department of Health & Human ServicesN.D. Florida· 2010-10-14· cited 32×
- State v. RopeCourt of Appeals of Texas· 1967-09-13· cited 29×
- ITT Diversified Credit Corp. v. CouchSupreme Court of Colorado· 1983-09-06· cited 21×
- Mitchell v. California Franchise Tax Board (In Re Mitchell)Ninth Circuit· 1998-07-15· cited 20×
- Smith v. United StatesD. Hawaii· 1953-07-28· cited 15×
- State Tax Commission v. Board of SupervisorsArizona Supreme Court· 1934-02-20· cited 15×
- People v. SonleitnerCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1960-10-17· cited 14×
- State ex rel. Kern v. JeromeWashington Supreme Court· 1914-06-29· cited 14×
- State ex rel. Kern v. EmersonWashington Supreme Court· 1916-04-06· cited 14×
- Horsman Dolls, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation CommissionSupreme Court of New Jersey· 1951-06-25· cited 13×
- In re Otto F. Lange Co.N.D. Iowa· 1908-03-12· cited 13×
- City of Reno v. County of WashoeNevada Supreme Court· 1978-06-14· cited 11×
- Jackson Lumber Co. v. McCrimmonUnited States Circuit Court for the Northern District of Florida· 1908-10-26· cited 10×
- Commonwealth Ex Rel. City of Wilmore v. McCrayCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)· 1933-06-23· cited 9×
Cites
9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Hagar v. Reclamation District No. 108Supreme Court· 1884-05-05· cited 543×
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. BackusSupreme Court· 1894-05-26· cited 260×
- License Tax CasesSupreme Court· 1867-01-28· cited 219×
- McMillen v. AndersonSupreme Court· 1877-10-22· cited 158×
- Pervear v. CommonwealthSupreme Court· 1867-04-29· cited 111×
- Spencer v. M'GowenNew York Supreme Court· 1835-01-15· cited 15×
- Brown Shoe Co. v. HuntSupreme Court of Iowa· 1897-10-28· cited 13×
- Smith v. SkowSupreme Court of Iowa· 1896-04-10· cited 8×
- In re the Application for Rebate of Liquor Tax of SmithSupreme Court of Iowa· 1897-12-18· cited 4×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.