Strasburg Railroad v. Echternacht

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the Internal Revenue Code’s personal exemptions, deductions, and other tax preferences violated the Uniformity Clause
• explaining that “[njatural persons ... cannot be likened to profit-maximizing entities” for purposes of determining whether a statute’s method of computing taxable income comports with the Uniformity Clause
• \[T]he challengers of the constitutionality of state or local taxation bear a heavy burden. . . .\
• “[T]he challengers of the constitutionality of state or local taxation bear a heavy burden____”
• personal income tax which was levied on a taxpayer’s taxable income, as defined under the Internal Revenue Code, which resulted in individual taxpayers having various portions of their income exempted from taxation, violated the Uniformity Clause
• “So long as a statute is constitutional, the Legislature is the sole judge of its necessity or expediency and a court cannot refuse to enforce it on any ground that it is unjust, unwise, inexpedient, obsolete or contrary to any supposed policy or custom.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).