Voran v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Section 1. That for the purpose of this act the term ‘money’ shall mean and include gold and silver coin, United States treasury notes, bank notes and other forms of currency in common use. The term ‘credits’ shall mean and include notes, mortgages, foreign stocks, bonds, annuities, royalties, contracts, copyrights, claims secured by deeds and every liquidated claim and demand for money, shares of stock in building and loan associations, other than permanent stock, or other valuable thing, except notes or obligations secured by mortgages on real estate, which mortgages have been recorded in this state, and registration fee or tax paid thereon, and shares of stock upon which taxes are otherwise payable under the laws of this state: Provided, That nothing in this act shall be construed to apply to money or credits, as herein defined, belonging to persons, partnerships, associations or corporations, the taxation of which is otherwise provided for by law, or to any national banicing association, or the stock thereof, or to .moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens of this state coming into competition with the business of national banks: Provided further, That bonds, notes or other evidences of indebtedness in the hands of individual citizens not employed or engaged in the banking, loan or investment business and representing merely personal investments, not made in competition with the business of national banks, shall not be deemed such moneyed capital. “Sec. 2. Tha”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Voran v. Wright

2. ““Sec. 5219. The legislature of .each state may determine and direct, subject to the provisions of this section, the manner and place of taxing all the shares of national banking associations located within its limits.. The several states may (1) tax said shares, or (2) include dividends derived therefrom in the taxable income of an owner or holder thereof, or (3) tax such associations on their net income, or (4) according to or measured by their net income, provided the following conditions are complied with: “1. (a) The imposition by any state of any one of the above four forms of taxation shall be in lieu of the others, except as hereinafter provided in subdivision (c) of this clause. “(b) In the case of a tax on said shares the tax imposed shall not be at a greater rate than is-assessed upon other moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens of such state coming into competition with the business of national banks: Provided,- That bonds, notes or other evidences of indebtedness in the hands of individual citizens not employed or engaged in the banking or investment business and representing merely personal investments not made in competition with such business, shall not be deemed moneyed capital within the meaning of this section.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Voran v. Wright

3. ““The essentials are that each man in city, county and state is interested in maintaining the state and local governments. The protection which they afford and the duty to maintain them are reciprocal. The burden of supporting them should be borne equally by all, and this equality consists in each one contributing in proportion to the amount of his property. To this end all property in the state must be listed and valued for the purpose of taxation, the rate of assessment and taxation to be uniform and equal throughout the jurisdiction levying the tax. The imposition of taxes upon selected classes of property to the exclusion of others, and the exemption of selected classes to the exclusion of others, constitute invidious discriminations which destroy uniformity.” (p. 58. See, also, Hodgins v. Shawnee County Comm’rs, 123 Kan. 246 , 255 Pac. 46 ; and Crosby Bros. Merc. Co. v. Shawnee County Comm’rs, 128 Kan. 740 , 280 Pac. 786 .)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Voran v. Wright