Pouncey v. New York City Tr. Auth.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that states may tax a proportion of “value . . . fairly and properly ascertained”
• arguing that “the property owned by express companies within the State of Ohio is not different in its character, uses or sit- uations from other similar property within the State, nor is there any greater difficulty in ascertaining its value for purposes of taxation”
• arguing that “the property owned by express companies within the State of Ohio is not different in its character, uses or sit- uations from other similar property within the State, nor is there any greater difficulty in ascertaining its value for purposes of taxation”
• “a state may value as a unit an integrated business enterprise operating in interstate commerce”; finding taxpayers’ air- craft properties were “used in an integrated and coordinated manner”
• the property of the express companies, “whether represented in tangible or intangible property, * * * possessed a value in combination * * * which could as rightfully be recognized in the assess- ment for taxation” as it could be for railroad, telegraph, and sleeping-car companies
• the property of the express companies, “whether represented in tangible or intangible property, * * * possessed a value in combination * * * which could as rightfully be recognized in the assess- ment for taxation” as it could be for railroad, telegraph, and sleeping-car companies

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).