Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), affirmed on rehearing, 158 U.S. 601 (1895), was a landmark case of the Supreme Court of the United States.In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down the income tax imposed by the Wilson–Gorman Tariff Act for being an unapportioned direct tax.
[22]: 37–38 Jackson's narrow interpretation of the Act set the stage for later consequential antitrust cases, including United States v. E. C. Knight Co. (1895), and it continued to influence interstate commerce law for half a century. [21]: 104, 107–108 In other cases, Jackson took a broader view of constitutional provisions.
11 comments Toggle Much needed overhaul of this article by a student of Constitutional Law subsection 1.1 My personal views on the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions in Pollock 1.2 Arguing about how to argue
It was passed by Congress in 1909 in response to the 1895 Supreme Court case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by the requisite number of states on February 3, 1913, and effectively overruled the Supreme Court's ruling in Pollock.
The case was the last of four successive Supreme Court cases related specifically to the Oliver Evans flour mill patent, [3] and the second such case to be decided on the same day, following Evans v. Eaton. Altogether the Evans patent generated twelve reported decisions from 1807 to 1822, making it "one of the most litigated patents in U.S ...
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
Evans v. Eaton, 20 U.S. (7 Wheat.) 356 (1822), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, chiefly, that a patent on an improved machine must clearly describe how the machine differs from the prior art. It was the fourth published Supreme Court decision on patents, [4] and the second to deal with substantive patent law. [5]
Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court instituted an exclusionary rule exception allowing evidence obtained through a warrantless search to be valid when a police record erroneously indicates the existence of an outstanding warrant due to negligent conduct of a Clerk of Court.