Legal Opinion

Huntington National Bank v. Limbach

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 20, 1994No. 93-1501PublishedCited by 8 opinions

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

  1. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
  2. McGowan v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
  3. City of New Orleans v. DukesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  4. Nordlinger v. HahnSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  5. 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

  1. Hamich, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. ClayburghNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1997
  2. State v. AlfieriOhio Court of Appeals · 1998
  3. T. Ryan Legg Irrevocable Trust v. Testa (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
  4. State v. DavenportOhio Court of Appeals · 1996
  5. City of Hamilton v. Fairfield TownshipOhio Court of Appeals · 1996

3 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