Valentine v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

299 U.S. 32, 57 S. Ct. 56, 81 L. Ed. 22, 1936 U.S. LEXIS 5
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided November 9, 1936·No. Nos. 13, 14, 15·Published·Cited by 10 cases

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

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).

299 U.S. 32 (Valentine v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

City of Tampa v. Birdsong Motors, Inc.
261 So. 2d 1 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1972)
Heyman v. Mahin
275 N.E.2d 421 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1971)
California Company v. State
348 P.2d 382 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1959)
Volusia County Kennel Club v. Haggard
73 So. 2d 884 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1954)
Minnesota v. National Tea Co.
309 U.S. 551 (Supreme Court, 1940)
National Tea Co. v. State
286 N.W. 360 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1939)
Southern Boulevard R. Co. v. City of New York
86 F.2d 633 (Second Circuit, 1936)