Huntington National Bank v. Limbach
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Huntington argues that it and foreign banks are in the same class and that taxing it at a higher rate than foreign banks denies it equal protection. The commissioner contends that Huntington’s ability to accept deposits in Ohio forms a rational basis to distinguish between it and foreign banks.
According to Nordlinger v. Hahn (1992), 505 U.S.-,-, 112 S.Ct. 2326, 2331-2332, 120 L.Ed.2d 1, 12:
“The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, § 1, commands that no State shall ‘deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’ Of course, most laws differentiate…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- McGowan v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- City of New Orleans v. DukesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Nordlinger v. HahnSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Hamich, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. ClayburghNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1997
- State v. AlfieriOhio Court of Appeals · 1998
- T. Ryan Legg Irrevocable Trust v. Testa (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
- State v. DavenportOhio Court of Appeals · 1996
- City of Hamilton v. Fairfield TownshipOhio Court of Appeals · 1996
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.