Legal Opinion
Cambridge State Bank v. Roemer
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided July 20, 1990No. C0-89-2097PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
YETKA, Justice.
In the autumn of 1984, respondent banks commenced a tax refund claim in the district court of Ramsey County pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 290.50, subd. 2 (1988). This consolidated action by over 170 Minnesota banks sought tax refunds for the tax years 1979 through 1983. The district court concluded that the pre-1983 Minnesota bank excise tax imposed by Minn.Stat. § 290.361 (1984) (repealed 1987) is, in substance, an income tax and discriminates against federal debt instruments in violation of the borrowing and supremacy clauses of the United States Constitution. The court found that…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Chevron Oil Co. v. HusonSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Fla. Dept. of Business RegulationSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. DiasSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. Commission of Webster Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- State v. BairdSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2002
- Summers v. R & D AGENCY, INC.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1999
- Cambridge State Bank v. JamesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1992
- Comerica Bank-Detroit v. Department of TreasuryMichigan Court of Appeals · 1992
- Cambridge State Bank v. JamesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1994
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.