Definitions from Black's Law Dictionary: 2nd Edition and Ballentine's Law Dictionary as are available for each term in each dictionary.
  • Ballentine's Law Dictionary

    Impartial; not discriminating; unbiased; uniform.

  • Black's Law Dictionary: 2nd Edition

    Alike; uniform; on the same plane or level with respect to efficiency, worth, value, amount, or rights. People v. Hoffman, 116 III. 587, 5 N. E. 600, 56 Am. Rep. 793.
    —Equal and uniform taxation. Taxes are said to be "equal and uniform" when no person or class of persons in the taxing district, whether it be a state, county, or city, is taxed at a different rate than are other persons in the same district upon the same value or the same thing, and where the objects of taxation are the same, by whomsoever owned or whatsoever they may be. Norris v. Waco, 57 Tex. 64i; People v. Whyler, 41 Cal. 355; The Railroad Tax Cases (C. C.) 13 Fed. 733 ; Ottawa County v. Nelson, 19 Kan. 239.
    —Equal degree. Persons are said to be related to a decedent "in equal degree" when they are all removed by an equal number of steps or degrees from the common ancestor. Fidler v. Higgins, 21 N. J. Eq. 162; Helmes v. Elliott, 89 Tenn. 446, 14 S. W. 930, 10 In R. A. 535.
    —Equal protection of the laws. The equal protection of the laws of a state is extended to persons within its jurisdiction, within the meaning of the constitutional requirement, when its courts are open to them on the same conditions as to others, with like rules of evidence and modes of procedure, for the security of their persons and property, the prevention, and redress of wrongs, and the enforcement of contracts; when they are subjected to no restrictions in the acquisition of property, the enjoyment of personal liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which do not generally affect others; when they are liable to no other or greater burdens and charges than such as are laid upon others; and when no different or greater punishment is enforced against them for a violation of the laws. State v. Montgomery. 94 Me. 192, 47 Atl. 165, 80 Am. St. Rep. 386. And see Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U. S. 377, 14 Sun. Ct. 570, 38 In Ed. 485; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Oarland, 5 Mont. 146, 3 Pac. 134; Missouri v. Lewis, 101 U. S. 25, 25 L. Ed. 989; Co.tting v. Godard. 183 U. S. 79. 22 Sup. Ct. 30, 46 L. Ed. 92; State Board of Assessors v. Central R. Co.. 48 N. J. Law, 146 4 Atl. 578; Minneapolis & St. L. It. Co. v. Beckwith, 129 In S. 26, 9 Sup. Ct. 207, 32 L. Ed. 585.