For Your Data Louis K. Liggett Co. V. Lee Example Brief
March 21, 2016
Edit
Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Lee illustration brief summary
288 U.S. 517 (1933)
CASE FACTS
Appellants, chain shop owners, filed a flat mouth praying that appellees, field revenue enhancement officials, hold out enjoined from enforcing 1931 Fla. Laws ch. 15624, a field licensing statute. Appellants challenged the statute equally violative of, inter alia, the due procedure in addition to equal protection clauses of U.S. Const. amend. XIV, in addition to of the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. Appellees' motility to orbit notice was granted in addition to afterward affirmed yesteryear the state's supreme court.
DISCUSSION
The Court reversed a decree affirming the dismissal of appellants' bill, in addition to the drive was remanded for farther proceedings non inconsistent alongside the Court's opinion. The Court constitute that sure as shooting provisions inward the human activity violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, simply that others that exempted filling stations engaged solely inward the sale of gasoline from a licensing revenue enhancement did non appall the guaranties of the Amendment.
Recommended Supplements for Corporations in addition to Business Associations Law
288 U.S. 517 (1933)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellants, chain shop owners, sought review of a decree from the Supreme Court of Florida that affirmed the dismissal of a mouth inward a adapt brought yesteryear appellants to enjoin appellees, field taxing officers, from enforcing a shop licensing act, 1931 Fla. Laws ch. 15624, on the grounds that the human activity lay a discriminatory revenue enhancement on chain stores.CASE FACTS
Appellants, chain shop owners, filed a flat mouth praying that appellees, field revenue enhancement officials, hold out enjoined from enforcing 1931 Fla. Laws ch. 15624, a field licensing statute. Appellants challenged the statute equally violative of, inter alia, the due procedure in addition to equal protection clauses of U.S. Const. amend. XIV, in addition to of the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. Appellees' motility to orbit notice was granted in addition to afterward affirmed yesteryear the state's supreme court.
DISCUSSION
- On farther appeal of questions arising nether the U.S. Constitution, the Court reversed the judgment in addition to remanded the cause.
- The Court constitute that §5, which increased the revenue enhancement if the stores were located inward to a greater extent than than ane county, was unreasonable in addition to arbitrary in addition to violated the equal protection clause of U.S. Const. amend. XIV.
- However, U.S. Const. amend. XIV did non forestall the State from imposing differing taxes upon dissimilar trades in addition to professions or varying the rates of excise upon diverse products.
- Accordingly, the fact that filling stations engaged solely inward the sale of gasoline were exempted from the revenue enhancement pose on appellants was non offensive to the guaranties of the amendment.
The Court reversed a decree affirming the dismissal of appellants' bill, in addition to the drive was remanded for farther proceedings non inconsistent alongside the Court's opinion. The Court constitute that sure as shooting provisions inward the human activity violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, simply that others that exempted filling stations engaged solely inward the sale of gasoline from a licensing revenue enhancement did non appall the guaranties of the Amendment.
Recommended Supplements for Corporations in addition to Business Associations Law