Illinois Supreme Court, 1973

United Air Lines, Inc. v. Mahin

Illinois Supreme Court · Decided June 25, 1973 · William J. Scott

298 N.E.2d 161; 54 Ill. 2d 431; 1973 Ill. LEXIS 356 (North Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P. C. (Supreme Court of the United States 1984)
American River Transportation Co. v. Bower (Ill. App. Ct. 2004)
American Aviation Supply v. Illinois Department of Revenue (Ill. App. Ct. 2024)
American River Transportation Co. v. Bower (Ill. App. Ct. 2004)
Nutrition Headquarters, Inc. v. Department of Revenue (Ill. App. Ct. 1984)
United Air Lines, Inc. v. Johnson (Ill. 1981)
United Air Lines, Inc. v. Mahin (Ill. App. Ct. 1979)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This court in United Air Lines, Inc. v. Mahin, 49 Ill.2d 45, affirmed a judgment of the circuit court of Cook County which refused to enjoin the Illinois Department of Revenue from assessing and collecting under the Department’s revised interpretation of the Illinois Use Tax Act the use tax on aviation fuel loaded by United Air Lines on planes about to embark upon or to continue interstate or foreign flights. On appeal (410 U.S. 623, 35 L. Ed. 2d 545, 93 S. Ct. 1186) the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the view of this court that the tax is not being unconstitutionally applied. However, it vacated our judgment and remanded the cause to this court for re-examination by two justices of this court in light of the Supreme Court’s holding that the interpretation of the Use Tax Act, or “burn off” rule, which originally had been followed by the Department of Revenue, was not constitutionally forbidden. See 410 U.S. 623, 632, 35 L. Ed. 2d.545, 554, 93 S. Ct. 1186, 1192.

The conclusions of those justices is that the current interpretation of the Act and the application of it by the Department are not improper and that the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.