Matter of A.H. Dugrenier, Inc. v. McGoldrick

New York Court of Appeals

Matter of A.H. Dugrenier, Inc. v. McGoldrick

28 N.E.2d 408, 283 N.Y. 685, 1940 N.Y. LEXIS 1126

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 14, 1940

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 28 N.E.2d 408 (Matter of A.H. Dugrenier, Inc. v. McGoldrick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matter of A.H. Dugrenier, Inc. v. McGoldrick, 28 N.E.2d 408, 283 N.Y. 685, 1940 N.Y. LEXIS 1126 (N.Y. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Our decision of this case (281 N. Y. 608) was made solely on the ground that the Legislature could not empower the city to tax the proceeds of transactions in interstate commerce. The issue as to whether transactions of the character in question are within the scope of the enabling act (L. 1934, ch. 873) was not considered by us. But that question is no longer open on this record, since our remittitur on which the case was certified to the Supreme Court of the United States recites that we affirmed the order of the Appellate Division “ upon the sole ground that the City Sales Tax Law as here applied violates the Commerce Clause (Art. 1, sec. 8, cl. 3) of the Constitution of the United States.” (281 N. Y. 669.)

Reargument should be denied, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Our decision of this case (281 N. Y. 608) was made solely on the ground that the Legislature could not empower the city to tax the proceeds of transactions in interstate commerce. The issue as to whether transactions of the character in question are within the scope of the enabling act (L. 1934, ch. 873) was not considered by us. But that question is no longer open on this record, since our remittitur on which the case was certified to the Supreme Court of the United States recites that we affirmed the order of the Appellate Division “ upon the sole ground that the City Sales Tax Law as here applied violates the Commerce Clause (Art. 1, sec. 8, cl. 3) of the Constitution of the United States.” (281 N. Y. 669.)

Reargument should be denied, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 N.E.2d 408, 283 N.Y. 685, 1940 N.Y. LEXIS 1126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-ah-dugrenier-inc-v-mcgoldrick-ny-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack