Valentine v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

Supreme Court

Valentine v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

299 U.S. 32, 57 S. Ct. 56, 81 L. Ed. 22, 1936 U.S. LEXIS 5

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedNovember 9, 1936

DocketNos. 13, 14, 15

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 299 U.S. 32 (Valentine v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Valentine v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 299 U.S. 32, 57 S. Ct. 56, 81 L. Ed. 22, 1936 U.S. LEXIS 5 (1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellees brought these suits to restrain the enforcement of a statute of Iowa known as the “Chain Store *33 Tax Act of 1935” (Iowa Code of 1935, c. 329 G-l). The District Court, composed of three judges, held that the provision of § 4 (b) of the statute, imposing a tax based on gross receipts from sales according to an accumulative graduated scale, was invalid under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States as creating an arbitrary discrimination. 12 F. Supp. 760. The case comes here upon direct appeal from a final decree granting a permanent injunction. 28 U. S. C. 380.

The decree is affirmed upon the authority of Stewart Dry Goods Co. v. Lewis, 294 U. S. 550.

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice Brandéis and Mr. Justice Cardozo dissent. Mr. Justice Stone took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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

Per Curiam.

Appellees brought these suits to restrain the enforcement of a statute of Iowa known as the “Chain Store *33 Tax Act of 1935” (Iowa Code of 1935, c. 329 G-l). The District Court, composed of three judges, held that the provision of § 4 (b) of the statute, imposing a tax based on gross receipts from sales according to an accumulative graduated scale, was invalid under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States as creating an arbitrary discrimination. 12 F. Supp. 760. The case comes here upon direct appeal from a final decree granting a permanent injunction. 28 U. S. C. 380.

The decree is affirmed upon the authority of Stewart Dry Goods Co. v. Lewis, 294 U. S. 550.

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice Brandéis and Mr. Justice Cardozo dissent. Mr. Justice Stone took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

299 U.S. 32, 57 S. Ct. 56, 81 L. Ed. 22, 1936 U.S. LEXIS 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valentine-v-great-atlantic-pacific-tea-co-scotus-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack