United States v. Board of Comm'rs of Osage Cty.
Citations
- 251 U.S. 128
- 40 S. Ct. 100
- 64 L. Ed. 184
- 1919 U.S. LEXIS 1828
Syllabus
<p>As the guardian of non-competent Osage Indians, whose surplus allotments are submitted to state taxation, under the Act of June 28, 1906, c. 3572, 34 Stat. 539, the United States may maintain a suit to protect such allottees as a class from being despoiled of their property through arbitrary, excessive and discriminating taxes, imposed upon them by the state tax officials in systematic and intentional disregard of the state laws. P. 132. •</p> <p>The proper officials of the United States (the United States Attorney under direction of the Attorney General) have implied authority to institute and conduct such a suit; and this is recognized by the ’ Act of March 2, 1917, c. 146, 39 Stat. 969, 983, providing for an appraisement of the lands to ascertain the extent of over-assessment. ... Id.</p> <p>In such a case the United States is not obliged to resort to the remedies afforded to individuals by the state law for the correction of mistakes committed in the tax proceedings, but may invoke the equity jurisdiction to avoid a multiplicity of suits, and secure an adequate remedy for the Indians as a class. P. 133.</p> <p>254 Fed. Rep. 570, reversed.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- finding adequate grounds for injunctive relief against local tax exactions where there was systematic and intentional disregard of law by state officers for the purpose of destroying the rights of a whole class of persons that was “subject to the protection of the United States”
- finding adequate grounds for injunctive relief against local tax exactions where there was systematic and intentional disregard of law by state officers for the purpose of destroying the rights of a whole class of persons that was \subject to the protection of the United States\
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: White
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.