About: Matthews v Chicory Marketing Board (Vic)

Facets (new session)
Description
Metadata
Settings
- Rule:
- Inverse Functional Properties:
- "Same As":

About: Matthews v Chicory Marketing Board (Vic) Goto Sponge NotDistinct Permalink

An Entity of Type : yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntity, within Data Space : dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com associated with source document(s)
QRcode icon

http://dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org%2Fresource%2FMatthews_v_Chicory_Marketing_Board_%28Vic%29

Matthews v Chicory Marketing Board (Vic), is a High Court of Australia case that considered section 90 of the Australian Constitution, which prohibits States from levying excise (taxes). Although the meaning of excise was considered in Peterswald v Bartley, this case significantly broadened its reach.

Attributes	Values
rdf:type	place yago:Abstraction100002137 yago:Case107308889 yago:Event100029378 yago:Happening107283608 yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100 yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntity
rdfs:label	Matthews v Chicory Marketing Board (Vic) (en)
rdfs:comment	Matthews v Chicory Marketing Board (Vic), is a High Court of Australia case that considered section 90 of the Australian Constitution, which prohibits States from levying excise (taxes). Although the meaning of excise was considered in Peterswald v Bartley, this case significantly broadened its reach. (en)
name	Matthews v Chicory Marketing Board (en)
foaf:depiction
dcterms:subject	Australian constitutional law Excise in the Australian Constitution cases 1938 in Australian law 1938 in case law High Court of Australia cases
Wikipage page ID	5621144 (xsd:integer)
Wikipage revision ID	1108971387 (xsd:integer)
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage	Australian constitutional law Peterswald v Bartley Victoria (Australia) Constitution of Australia Excise in the Australian Constitution cases Chicory Chief Justice of Australia Edward McTiernan England George Rich George Winterton Australian constitutional law Australian pound Hayden Starke 1938 in Australian law 1938 in case law Owen Dixon Framer High Court of Australia High Court of Australia cases Section 90 of the Constitution of Australia Excise John Latham (jurist) Justices
Link from a Wikipage to an external page	http://www8.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1938/38.pdf
sameAs	Matthews v Chicory Marketing Board (Vic) Matthews v Chicory Marketing Board (Vic) Matthews v Chicory Marketing Board (Vic)
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate	dbt:Abbr dbt:Refimprove dbt:Reflist dbt:Short_description dbt:Use_Australian_English dbt:Use_dmy_dates dbt:Italics_title dbt:Cite_AustLII dbt:Infobox_court_case
thumbnail	wiki-commons:Special:FilePath/Coat_of_Arms_of_Australia.svg?width=300
court	High Court of Australia
full name	Matthews v The Chicory Marketing Board (en)
judges	Latham CJ, Rich, Starke, Dixon and McTiernan JJ (en)
has abstract	Matthews v Chicory Marketing Board (Vic), is a High Court of Australia case that considered section 90 of the Australian Constitution, which prohibits States from levying excise (taxes). Although the meaning of excise was considered in Peterswald v Bartley, this case significantly broadened its reach. In this case, the law in question was a Victorian tax on producers of chicory, which was measured at the rate of one pound per half-acre, of land planted with the crop. The minority in this case, consisting of Latham CJ and McTiernan J, followed the Peterswald definition and held that an excise must have some relation to the quantity or value of the goods. On the contrary, the majority, whose principal judgment was delivered by Dixon J, allowed this extension. After examining the history of excise in England, his Honour concluded that the definition in Peterswald may be too narrow. All that is required is that the "tax must bear a close relation to the production or manufacture, the sale or the consumption of goods and must be of such a nature as to affect them as the subjects of manufacture or production or as articles of commerce". Hence, although the tax in this case did not directly refer to the quantity or value of the chicory produced, the land area has a "natural, although not a necessary" relation to the quantity produced, and it is a "controlling element". This was formulated with reference to the framers of the Constitution, who adopted an excise as "a tax directly affecting commodities". (en)
date decided	1938-08-09 (xsd:date)
opinions	The tax on producers of chicory calculated by land area was found to be an excise (en)
gold:hypernym	Court
prov:wasDerivedFrom	wikipedia-en:Matthews_v_Chicory_Marketing_Board_(Vic)?oldid=1108971387&ns=0
page length (characters) of wiki page	3775 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf	wikipedia-en:Matthews_v_Chicory_Marketing_Board_(Vic)
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage of	List of High Court of Australia cases Ha v New South Wales
is foaf:primaryTopic of	wikipedia-en:Matthews_v_Chicory_Marketing_Board_(Vic)

Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git139 as of Feb 29 2024

Alternative Linked Data Documents: ODE Content Formats:

RDF

ODATA

Microdata

About

OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3330 as of Mar 19 2024, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc212), Single-Server Edition (378 GB total memory, 59 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software