Legal Opinion · Dissent

Aetna Insurance v. Hobbs

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided September 15, 1945No. 36,418; No. 36,421; No. 36,422; No. 36,423; No. 36,424; No. 36,425; No. 36,426; No. 36,427; No. 36,428; No. 36,429; No. 36,445; No. 36,448; No. 36,449; No. 36,466; No. 36,478; No. 36,491Published

1DissentHoch, J.

It is with regret that I find myself unable

to concur in this decision. Various issues are involved, but in an effort to keep this statement within reasonable limits I shall limit it to the premium tax, which is the heart of the controversy.

First, as to the nature of the so-called premium tax. It is not in fact a tax upon insurance premiums. It is not assessed against any particular activities or transactions. It is simply a privilege tax— a tax exacted annually from certain foreign (out of state) companies for the privilege of transacting their insurance business in this state. (Pac. Mutual…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Parker v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
  2. United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
  3. The Minnesota Rate CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
  4. Baldwin v. G. A. F. Seelig, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1935
  5. Welton v. MissouriSupreme Court of the United States · 1876

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API