Boyd v. Weiss
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1DissentAnnabelle Clinton Imber, Justice
I agree with the majority except to the extent that they conclude that the street-state-line classification is rationally related to the purpose of Act 48. For this reason alone, I must respectfully dissent.
As the majority correctly acknowledges, when deciding whether an act is special or local legislation we must first determine whether the mechanics of the act are rationally related to its purpose. In this respect, the majority concludes that the income-tax exclusion contained in Act 48 is rationally related to the purpose of protecting “the border city by removing the inducement for that…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Federal Communications Commission v. Beach Communications, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- United States Railroad Retirement Board v. FritzSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Sullivan v. StroopSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Streight v. RaglandSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1983
- McCutchen v. HuckabeeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1997
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.