Case: VALENTINE, CHAIRMAN OF THE IOWA STATE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW, et al. v. GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO.
Abbreviation: Valentine v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
Decision Date: 1936-11-09
Docket Number: No. 13
Citation: 299 U.S. 32
Volume: 299
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: VALENTINE, CHAIRMAN OF THE IOWA STATE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW, et al. v. GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO.
Judges: Mr. Justice Brandéis and Mr. Justice Cardozo dissent.
Pages: 32–33

Head Matter:
VALENTINE, CHAIRMAN OF THE IOWA STATE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW, et al. v. GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO.
No. 13.
Argued October 14, 1936.
Decided November 9, 1936.
Mr. Frank F. Messer and Mr. Edward L. O’Connor, Attorney General of Iowa, with whom Mrs. W. E. Wallace and John Connolly, Jr., were on the brief, for appellants.
Mr. Joseph G. Gamble, with whom Messrs. Ralph L. Read, Alden B. Howland, and Joseph F. Rosenfield were on the brief, for appellees.
Together with No. 14, Valentine, Chairman, et al. v. Graham Department Stores Co. et al.; and No. 15, Valentine, Chairman, et al. v. Walgreen Co. et al. Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Iowa.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Appellees brought these suits to restrain the enforcement of a statute of Iowa known as the "Chain Store Tax Act of 1935" (Iowa Code of 1935, c. 329 G-l). The District Court, composed of three judges, held that the provision of § 4 (b) of the statute, imposing a tax based on gross receipts from sales according to an accumulative graduated scale, was invalid under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States as creating an arbitrary discrimination. 12 F. Supp. 760. The case comes here upon direct appeal from a final decree granting a permanent injunction. 28 U. S. C. 380.
The decree is affirmed upon the authority of Stewart Dry Goods Co. v. Lewis, 294 U. S. 550.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Brandéis and Mr. Justice Cardozo dissent.
Mr. Justice Stone took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.