Dant & Russell v. Board of Supervisors

3 Citing cases

  1. Rice Growers' Association v. County of Yolo

    17 Cal.App.3d 227 (Cal. Ct. App. 1971)   Cited 7 times

    ( Id., p. 610.) Though relating to "imports," Dant Russell v. Board of Supervisors (1943) 21 Cal.2d 534 [ 133 P.2d 817] is germane to the question, as is the dicta of Dooley v. United States (1901) 183 U.S. 151, 154-155 [46 L.Ed. 128, 130, 22 S.Ct. 62]. Since the Philippine Islands now are independent, and Puerto Rico is a commonwealth of the United States, the considerations advanced by a highly divided court relative to "imports" from the former in Hooven Allison Co. v. Evatt (1945) 324 U.S. 652, 671 [89 L.Ed. 1252, 1266, 65 S.Ct. 870], not since repeated, are not deemed applicable to the issue before us.

  2. E.J. Stanton Sons v. County of L.A

    78 Cal.App.2d 181 (Cal. Ct. App. 1947)   Cited 21 times
    In E. J. Stanton & Sons v. County of Los Angeles (1947) 78 Cal.App.2d 181, 177 P.2d 804, certiorari denied, 332 U.S. 766, 68 S.Ct. 75, 92 L.Ed. 352, pieces of lumber were shipped from abroad without being packaged individually or as a group.

    A hearing was granted by the Supreme Court which affirmed the decision we had reversed. ( 21 Cal.2d 534 [ 133 P.2d 817].) While the affirmance was based upon the theory that the mahogany taxed was a shipment in interstate traffic (from the Philippines) and for that reason not liable to state taxation, the application for the hearing was based upon the county's claim that each board in the cargo was not an original package.

  3. Clostermann v. Rogers

    332 P.2d 1036 (Or. 1958)   Cited 4 times

    Quite often, such examination will produce what appear as opposing results. In exemplification of the foregoing statement, contrast Dant Russell, Inc. v. Board of Sup'rs., 21 Cal.2d 534, 133 P.2d 817, 818 (1943), where certain lumber shipped from the Philippine Islands was, in fact, an import from a "foreign country," with M/V Nonsuco, Inc. v. Comm'r. of Internal Revenue, 234 F.2d 583 (4th Cir 1956), where the question as to whether the Philippine Islands is a "foreign country," as used in the Internal Revenue Code, and note the opposite conclusions based upon the context of the respective statutes under review in those cases. Another example is found in Dr. Pepper Bottling Co. of Kentucky v. Hazelip, 284 Ky. 333, 144 S.W.2d 798, 801 (1940), where a resident of a sister state is held to be a resident of a foreign country within the meaning of a statute.