Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Giamalva v. Cooper, 47 So. 2d 790.

15 citing documents.

Beer Industry League of Louisiana and Wine and Spirits Foundation of Louisiana, Inc. v. the City of New … 251 So. 3d 380 La. 2018
521 , (1958) ; Giamalva v. Cooper , , (1950) ; Mouledoux v. Maestri , 197 La.
Radiofone, Inc. v. City of New Orleans 630 So. 2d 694 La. 1994
521 , (1958); , (1950); Mouledoux v. Maestri, 197 La.
Salter v. STATE THROUGH DHHR 612 So. 2d 163 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Salter v. State ex rel. Department of Health & Human Resources 612 So. 2d 163 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Roger v. Estate of Moulton 494 So. 2d 1226 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Stanford v. Louisiana Sweet Potato Advertising & Development Commission 229 So. 2d 712 La. 1969
it failed to give consideration as to whether the tax was in fact a license tax as contradistinguished from an excise tax, pointing out that under the provisions of Article 10, Section 8, the farmer was not exempt from all taxation but simply a tax on the privilege or right to pursue the occupation or pursuit of farming, and relying upon two subsequent decisions of this court, , , and Ewell v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University, 234 La.
Osborn Funeral Home, Inc. v. Louisiana State Board of Embalmers 194 So. 2d 185 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
(1950); Causey v. Opelousas-St.
State Licensing Bd. of Con. v. State Civil Serv. Com'n 110 So. 2d 847 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
855 , , , , Mouledoux v. Maestri, 197 La.
Roberts v. City of Baton Rouge 108 So. 2d 111 La. 1958
Ewell v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University 100 So. 2d 221 La. 1958
City of New Orleans v. Forsyth 99 So. 2d 316 La. 1957
In support of the proposition, , , wherein it was held that Section 20(d) of Act 15 of 1934, 3rd Ex.
City of New Orleans v. Christian 87 So. 2d 6 La. 1956
Gandolfo v. Louisiana State Racing Commission 78 So. 2d 504 La. 1954
Thus, ; , involving an attack on a statute which imposed an annual license tax' on each slot machine, I wrote in a dissent-* ing opinion (among other things) the following: “Of paramount importance, hence, is the question of whether the 'legislation* under consideration tends to‘ encourage-rather than to s
Killian v. Craft 76 So. 2d 401 La. 1954
we held that the imposition of an occupational license tax on slot machines, Act No. 6 of 1948, did not legalize the operation of machines prohibited by law and that the state may tax what it prohibits.
Guillot v. Nunez 72 So. 2d 513 La. 1954
It is argued, on behalf of plaintiff, that the foregoing provisions exhibit the intention of the Legislature to treat gambling slot machines as property subject to private ownership and that, , , in which we ruled that Act No. 6.-of 1948 was constitutional, it follows that the statute necessarily repeals Act No. 231 of 1928 because the validity of that Act, as-announced in the Ricks case, is sustainable-only upon the theory that gambling slot machines are contraband.