Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Missouri State Tax Commission
Supreme Court of the United States
1DissentJustice Black
It is established law, as the Court apparently recognizes in its opinion, that an interstate company challenging a state apportionment of the company’s property taxable in the State has the heavy burden of proving by “clear and cogent evidence” that the apportionment is grossly and flagrantly excessive. See, e. g., Railway Express Agency v. Virginia, 358 U. S. 434, 444, and cases cited. I agree with the Supreme Court of Missouri that appellant railroad failed to meet that burden and would therefore affirm its judgment. See its opinion at 426 S. W. 2d 362.
It is true that most of the cars used…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co. v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway v. BrowningSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. BackusSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher EducationSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
- United States Express Co. v. MinnesotaSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.