Minnesota Supreme Court, 1939

State v. Illinois Central Railroad Company

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided June 16, 1939 · Hilton, Peterson

286 N.W. 359; 205 Minn. 621; 1939 Minn. LEXIS 812 (North Western Reporter)

Counsel

Doherty, Rumble, Butler, Sullivan Mitchell, R.C. Beckett, Charles A. Helsell, V.W. Foster , and E.C. Craig , for appellant. J.A.A. Burnquist , Attorney General, and John A. Weeks , Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1942, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. (Minn. 1941)
Almer Railway Equipment Co. v. Commissioner of Taxation (Minn. 1942)
Llinois Central Railroad v. Minnesota (Supreme Court of the United States 1940)

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 of the Court

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered in the court below after the orders denying the motions of both parties for amended findings or a new trial were affirmed. Decision filed February 17, 1939', rehearing denied March 14, 1939. State v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. 205 Minn. 1, 284 N. W. 360.

The errors assigned and urged on this appeal were presented on the former appeal, and the decision therein must be considered final so far as this court is concerned. It having been found that the Burlington formula for computing the tax on freight car per diem earnings was proper and that the one proposed by defendant “is not a better formula than the Burlington,” it follows that the tax computed according to the Burlington formula violates no provision of the constitution of this state, and we are unable to see that the fourteenth amendment or any other provision of the federal constitution is violated by the judgment rendered.

The judgment is affirmed.

Mr. Justice Hilton and Mr. Justice' Peterson took no part.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.