Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. United Americans for Public Schools
Franchise Tax Board of California Et Al. v. United Americans for Public Schools Et Al.
Opinion of the Court
Affirmed on appeal from D. C. N. D. Cal.
Dissent
Mr. Justice White, joined by The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Rehnquist,
dissenting.
The District Court struck down the California statute providing state income-tax reductions for taxpayers sending their children to nonpublic schools. The Court summarily affirms this judgment. For the reasons stated in my dissent in Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U. S. 756, 813-824 (1973), I disagree and respectfully dissent.
Combined text as published — syllabus, headnotes and all opinions in one document
419 U.S. 890 95 S.Ct. 166 42 L.Ed.2d 135
FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF the State of CALIFORNIA et al. v. UNITED AMERICANS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS et al.
No. 73-1718.
Supreme Court of the United States
October 21, 1974
The judgment is affirmed.
Mr. Justice WHITE, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice REHNQUIST, dissenting.
1
The District Court struck down the California statute providing state income-tax reductions for taxpayers sending their children to nonpublic schools. The Court summarily affirms this judgment. For the reasons stated in my dissent in Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 813-824 , 93 S.Ct. 2955 , 37 L.Ed.2d 948 (1973). I disagree and respectfully dissent.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(summarily affirming district-court judgment striking down state statute that provided income-tax reductions for taxpayers sending children to nonpublic schools)
Cited by 17 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Supreme Court2
- Federal District Courts2
- State Highest Courts6
- State Appellate Courts6
- State Attorney General Opinions1
Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.