Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

P. Lorillard Co. v. Seattle

8 Wn. App. 510 (Wash. Ct. App. 1973)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
P. Lorillard Co. v. Seattle

5 Citing cases

  1. P. Lorillard Company v. Seattle

    83 Wn. 2d 586 (Wash. 1974)   Cited 8 times
    Holding municipal privilege tax on business of wholesaling cigarettes and state tax on "sale, use, consumption" of cigarette products "are not of the same nature" for preemption purposes, though both are excise taxes related to cigarettes

    ROSELLINI and WRIGHT, JJ., dissent by separate opinion. Review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, March 12, 1973, 8 Wn. App. 510. Reversed.

  2. Mescalero Apache Tribe v. O'Cheskey

    625 F.2d 967 (10th Cir. 1980)   Cited 11 times
    In Mescalero Apache Tribe v. O'Cheskey, 625 F.2d 967 (10th Cir. 1980) (en banc), we were also not faced with dual regulatory schemes.

    It has also been held in a Washington test that the incidence of a tax "is its impact, effect, or imposition upon the person, property or transaction that bears the ultimate money burden." P. Lorillard Co. v. City of Seattle, 8 Wn. App. 510, 507 P.2d 1212, 1216 (1973). In the case of Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. Virginia, 358 U.S. 434, 439, 79 S.Ct. 411, 415, 3 L.Ed.2d 450 (1959), the Supreme Court used the term in connection with a Virginia franchise tax measured by gross receipts from transportation within the state — through the state or into or out of the state.

  3. Holliday v. Xerox Corp.

    555 F. Supp. 51 (E.D. Mich. 1982)   Cited 9 times
    In Holliday, I found that the parties themselves could create a contractual obligation by and through statements contained in pension plans.

    "Preemption indicates a complete take-over of a field . . . to the exclusion of all interference . . ." P. Lorillard Co. v. Seattle, 8 Wn. App. 510, 507 P.2d 1212, 1216 (1973). Preemption does not mean, as Xerox maintains, that contracts are necessarily unenforceable; it merely means that federal, rather than state law, applies.

  4. Port v. Utils. Transp. Comm'n

    92 Wn. 2d 789 (Wash. 1979)   Cited 41 times

    Pacific First Fed. Sav. Loan Ass'n v. Pierce County, 27 Wn.2d 347, 178 P.2d 351 (1947). P. Lorillard Co. v. Seattle, 8 Wn. App. 510, 507 P.2d 1212 (1973). We do not believe that the power to operate an airporter service is implied in or incident to those powers expressly granted or essential to the purposes of the Port by RCW 53.08.020.

  5. William Clairmont, Inc. v. State

    261 N.W.2d 780 (N.D. 1978)   Cited 8 times
    Describing an exemption as "a special freedom from taxation imposed upon others"

    It is a special freedom from taxation imposed upon others, a dispensation. P. Lorillard Company v. City of Seattle, 8 Wn. App. 510, 507 P.2d 1212 (1973). This is the sense in which the word "exempt" is customarily used in the statutes of this State. in 1969, by Chapter 528, Section 18, 1969 Session Laws, certain kinds of milk, meat, and fish products were exempted from sales tax.