Investment Co. Institute v. Hatch
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
CRIPPEN, Judge.
Appellant contends that the statutory registration fee scheme embodied in Minn. Stat. § 80A.28, subd. 1(b) (1990) violates both the due process and the equal protection clauses of the United States Constitution. We affirm the trial court’s summary judgment that the statutory language and legislative history sufficiently support the use of Minn.Stat. § 80A.28, subd. 1(b) to raise revenues.
FACTS
Subdivision 1(b) of section 80A.28 provides for the collection of fees from the registration of redeemable securities. 1 The statute provides for a fee calculated as a percentage of…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Whitney v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- United States v. Munoz-FloresSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Johnson v. HarrisonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
- Texas Co. v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Snyder v. City of MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Haage v. SteiesCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1996
- Masters v. Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Natural ResourcesCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2000
- Pomrenke v. Commissioner of CommerceCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2004