Illinois Central Railroad v. Greene
Citations
- 244 U.S. 555
- 37 S. Ct. 697
- 61 L. Ed. 1309
- 1917 U.S. LEXIS 1662
Syllabus
<p>Greene v. Louisville & Interurban R. R. Co., ante, 499, followed in holding: (1) That these áre not in effect suits against the State, (2) that plaintiff has not an adequate remedy at law under § 162, Ky. Stats., and (3) that judicial relief may be granted against unlawful discrimination resulting from general and systematic undervaluations by assessors.</p> <p>Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v, Greene, ante, 522, followed: (1) As to the sufficiency of proof of general, systematic and notorious undervaluation of property by assessors in Kentucky, (2) in holding that the jurisdiction of- the courts extends to enjoining the collection of illegal taxes when assessed for state purposes as well as when assessed for local purposes, and (3) in holding that, as applied to an interstate railroad, the Kentucky statutes require first an apportionment of a proper share of the railroad’s total “capital stock” (tangible and intangible property) value to Kentucky, followed by a deduction from Kentucky’s portion thereof of the value of the railroad’s tangible property in that State.</p> <p>The evidence here warrants the conclusion that plaintiff’s “franchise” (intangible property) in Kentucky was valued by the Board of Valuation and Assessment upon the basis of 80 per cent, of its “capital stock” (tangible and intangible property) apportioned to that State.</p> <p>In the absence of fraud, the valuations made by an assessing board are not judicially reexaminable unless resulting from some principle of assessment which is fundamentally wrong.</p> <p>In this case no fundamentally wrong principle was involved in adopting the capitalization-of-income rather than the stock-and-bond plan for valuing a railroad system; in determining what rate of interest should be selected, or how many years’ earnings should be considered, in capitalizing; or in finding what was the net income for a given year.</p> <p>Although the fact that property is part of a system and has its uses only in connect
Judges: Pitney, Holmes, Brandéis, Nos
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
20 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. HaldermanSupreme Court· 1984-01-23· cited 8,956×
- Ray Consolidated Copper Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1925-05-25· cited 77×
- Ex Parte WilliamsSupreme Court· 1928-05-21· cited 43×
- Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Ass'n v. State Board of Equalization, Department of Revenue & TaxationWyoming Supreme Court· 1988-01-19· cited 43×
- Eminence Distillery Co. v. Henry County Board of SupervisorsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky· 1918-01-25· cited 34×
- Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. StateNebraska Supreme Court· 1923-12-31· cited 26×
- Navajo County v. Four Corners Pipe Line CompanyArizona Supreme Court· 1970-12-31· cited 19×
- Pleasant v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co.Tenth Circuit· 1933-08-04· cited 14×
- Texas-Empire Pipe Line Co. v. Commissioner of Int. Rev.Tenth Circuit· 1942-03-23· cited 12×
- Iowa Loan & Trust Co. v. FairweatherS.D. Iowa· 1918-09-16· cited 12×
- Coca-Cola Co. v. StevensonS.D. Illinois· 1920-01-15· cited 11×
- First Nat. Ben. Soc. v. GarrisonS.D. California· 1945-01-16· cited 7×
- Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. Board of Public WorksS.D. West Virginia· 1933-06-16· cited 7×
- Paxton v. Ohio Fuel Supply Co.Sixth Circuit· 1926-03-12· cited 7×
- Southern Railway Co. v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky· 1924-06-13· cited 5×
- Watrous v. District of ColumbiaD.C. Circuit· 1943-03-09· cited 3×
- Chicago, I. & L. Ry. Co. v. LewisE.D. Kentucky· 1925-11-11· cited 2×
- Elgin v. HessenW.D. Tennessee· 1921-02-23· cited 2×
- Sheppard v. Atlantic Pipe Line Co.Court of Appeals of Texas· 1942-10-07· cited 1×
- C. C. Thompson Pottery Co. v. RoutzahnN.D. Ohio· 1927-12-03· cited 1×
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
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.