Michigan Central Railroad v. Powers
Citations
- 201 U.S. 245
- 26 S. Ct. 459
- 50 L. Ed. 744
- 1906 U.S. LEXIS 1789
Syllabus
<p>A state statute may be unconstitutional because conflicting.with the constitution of the State or with that of the United States, but all objections ' to its validity whether state or Federal may be presented in a single suit and call for consideration and determination; .and as a Federal court has the jurisdiction it may be its duty, when the question is properly presented, to pass upon an alleged conflict between a state statute and the state constitution even before the question has been considered by the state tribunals. It will'however be reluctant to do so especially when the statute is one affecting public revenues of the State.</p> <p>There is no general supervision by the Nation over state taxation, in regard to which the State has, generally speaking, the freedom of a sovereign both as to objects and methods.</p> <p>While there is always a possibility of misconduct on the part of officials, legislation may. proceed on the assumption of their properly discharging their duties.</p> <p>Where a legislature enacts a specific rule for fixing a rate of taxation, by which rule the rate is mathematically deduced from facts and events occurring within the year,-and created without reference to the matter of that rate, there is no abdication of the legislative function, but on the contrary there is a direct legislative determination of that rate.</p> <p>Unless there is some specific provision in the state constitution compelling other action a State may treat its entire territory as composing but a single taxing district, and deal.with all property as within the district and subject it to taxation accordingly.</p> <p>This court may in a case of this nature take judicial notice of the fact that the State of Michigan is traversed in almost every direction by railroads and that the county in which there are no railroads, if any there be, is an exception.</p> <p>Nothing in the Federal Constitution prevents a State from separating a particular class of property and sub
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- the state has sovereign freedom to tax, both as to objects and methods
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Brewer
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
68 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. VirginiaSupreme Court· 1920-06-07· cited 1,251×
- Shaffer v. CarterSupreme Court· 1920-03-01· cited 387×
- New York Ex Rel. Hatch v. ReardonSupreme Court· 1907-01-07· cited 256×
- New York Rapid Transit Corp. v. City of New YorkSupreme Court· 1938-03-28· cited 232×
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. GarrettSupreme Court· 1913-12-01· cited 217×
- Dallas County v. Commercial Union Assurance Company, Ltd.Fifth Circuit· 1961-01-17· cited 168×
- Southern Railway Co. v. WattsSupreme Court· 1923-01-02· cited 121×
- Citizens' Telephone Co. of Grand Rapids v. FullerSupreme Court· 1913-06-10· cited 114×
- Kentucky Union Co. v. KentuckySupreme Court· 1911-01-03· cited 88×
- Emerson College v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1984-03-14· cited 80×
- Lockwood v. Commissioner of RevenueMichigan Supreme Court· 1959-10-22· cited 65×
- Standard Lbr. Co. v. PierceOregon Supreme Court· 1924-09-16· cited 65×
- Thorn v. Jefferson CountySupreme Court of Alabama· 1979-09-07· cited 56×
- Joseph R. Foard Co. v. Maryland ex rel. GoralskiFourth Circuit· 1914-11-05· cited 51×
- Charleston Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Alderson, State Tax Com'rSupreme Court· 1945-06-18· cited 47×
- State v. Clement National BankSupreme Court of Vermont· 1911-01-16· cited 43×
- McBriety v. CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORECourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1959-02-20· cited 42×
- People v. Keith Railway Equipment Co.California Court of Appeal· 1945-07-27· cited 37×
- Town of St. John v. State Board of Tax CommissionersIndiana Tax Court· 1997-12-22· cited 36×
- State v. SpearsNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1953-05-06· cited 34×
Cites
12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway Co. v. EllisSupreme Court· 1897-01-18· cited 580×
- Bell's Gap Railroad v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court· 1890-03-10· cited 449×
- Cummings v. National BankSupreme Court· 1880-03-18· cited 272×
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. BackusSupreme Court· 1894-05-26· cited 260×
- American Sugar Refining Co. v. LouisianaSupreme Court· 1900-11-05· cited 230×
- Kentucky Railroad Tax CasesSupreme Court· 1885-11-16· cited 176×
- Kidd v. AlabamaSupreme Court· 1903-02-23· cited 107×
- Travellers' Insurance v. ConnecticutSupreme Court· 1902-05-05· cited 93×
- Clark v. TitusvilleSupreme Court· 1902-03-03· cited 81×
- Florida Central & Peninsular Railroad v. ReynoldsSupreme Court· 1902-01-06· cited 75×
- Billings v. IllinoisSupreme Court· 1903-01-19· cited 68×
- New York State v. BarkerSupreme Court· 1900-12-10· cited 36×
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.