Supreme Court of the United States, 1936

Valentine v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided November 9, 1936 · Brandeis, Cardozo, Stone

299 U.S. 32; 57 S. Ct. 56; 81 L. Ed. 22; 1936 U.S. LEXIS 5 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. Frank F. Messer and Mr. Edward L. O’Connor, Attorney General of Iowa, with whom Mrs. W. E. Wallace and John Connolly, Jr., were on the brief, for appellants., Mr. Joseph G. Gamble, with whom Messrs. Ralph L. Read, Alden B. Howland, and Joseph F. Rosenfield were on the brief, for appellees.

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Volusia County Kennel Club v. Haggard (Fla. 1954)
California Company v. State (Colo. 1959)
Minnesota v. National Tea Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1940)
City of Tampa v. Birdsong Motors, Inc. (Fla. 1972)
Heyman v. Mahin (Ill. 1971)
National Tea Co. v. State (Minn. 1939)
Tolerton & Warfield Co. v. Iowa State Board of Assessment & Review (Iowa 1936)
Southern Boulevard R. Co. v. City of New York (2d Cir. 1936)

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.

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.

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