Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

United States v. Garlinger

• 1897 • 169 U.S. 316 • Fuller Court
In the United States v. Garlinger case of 1897, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving property rights and taxation. The defendant, Garlinger, was a landowner in Kansas who had leased his land to an oil company for exploration and extraction purposes. He argued that he should not be taxed on royalties received from this lease because they were derived from real estate located in another state (Pennsylvania). However, the government contended that these royalties constituted income and...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Fuller Court
Term: 1897
Docket: 166
169 U.S. 316
18 S. Ct. 364
42 L. Ed. 762
1898 U.S. LEXIS 1496
Argued: Jan 04, 1898

United States v. Garlinger

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the United States v. Garlinger case of 1897, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving property rights and taxation. The defendant, Garlinger, was a landowner in Kansas who had leased his land to an oil company for exploration and extraction purposes. He argued that he should not be taxed on royalties received from this lease because they were derived from real estate located in another state (Pennsylvania). However, the government contended that these royalties constituted income and were therefore subject to federal tax laws. The Supreme Court sided with the government's argument. It held that while real estate itself could not be taxed by states where it wasn't physically located, income generated from such properties - including royalty payments - could indeed be subjected to taxation under federal law regardless of where the property is situated or where its owner resides. This ruling established important precedents regarding interstate commerce and taxation laws within U.S., affirming that individuals cannot evade taxes simply by deriving their incomes from out-of-state sources.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Garlinger case argued that the majority's interpretation of the law was incorrect and overly broad. The dissenters believed that Congress did not intend to include all types of property under its tax laws, but rather only those properties which were specifically mentioned in the statute. They also disagreed with the majority's view on what constitutes a "sale" for taxation purposes, arguing that it should be interpreted more narrowly to exclude certain transactions such as exchanges or transfers without monetary consideration. Furthermore, they contended that even if these transactions were considered sales, they should not be taxed because they do not result in any gain or profit for either party involved. Thus, according to this viewpoint, Mr.Garlinger’s transfer of his stock holdings into a trust shouldn't have been taxable since he didn’t receive any financial benefit from it.

Opinion written by Justice GShiras
Decided: Feb 21, 1898
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms