Citation network
Nordlinger Vs. Hahn
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 18, 1992
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Adjudged in the Supreme Court of the United States at October Term, 1991 Syllabus Nord Linger V. HahnSearch
-
of deciding not to buy his home if taxes become prohibitively high. Pp. 11-14. (d) Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. CountySearch
-
complaint without leave to amend. App. to Pet. for Cert. D2. The California Court of Appeal affirmed. Nordlinger v. LynchSearch
-
challenge to the disparities in taxation resulting from Article XIIIA. See Amador Valley Joint Union High School Dist. v. StateSearch
-
The Court of Appeal also concluded that this Court's more recent decision in Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. CountySearch
-
purchased property on the basis of its pur- law was this Court's decision in Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. CountySearch
-
decisionmakers from treating differently persons who are in all relevant respects alike. F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. VirginiaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Clause requires only that the classification rationally further a legitimate state interest. See, e. g., Cleburne v. CleburneSearch
-
New Orleans v. DukesSearch
-
qualifies for heightened scrutiny because it infringes upon the constitutional right to travel. See, e. g., Zobel v. WilliamsSearch
-
Memorial Hospital v. MaricopaSearch
-
Allen v. WrightSearch
-
U. S. 737 , 751 (1984). See also Moose Lodge No. 107 v. IrvisSearch
-
rights she seeks to assert, such that we might overlook this prudential limitation. Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. UnitedSearch
-
so long as there is a plausible policy reason for the classification, see United States Railroad Retirement Bd. v. FritzSearch
-
is apparently based rationally may have been considered to be true by the governmental decisionmaker, see Minnesota v. CloverSearch
-
the classification to its goal is not so attenuated as to render the distinction arbitrary or irrational, see Cleburne v. CleburneSearch
-
U. S. 14 , 22 (1985), quoting Lehnhausen v. LakeSearch
-
Shore Auto Parts Co., 410 U. S. 356 , 359 (1973). See also Regan v. TaxationSearch
-
the State has a legitimate interest in local neighborhood preservation, continuity, and stability. Village of Euclid v. AmblerSearch
-
U. S. 728 , 746 (1984) (internal quotation marks omitted). For example, in Kadrmas v. DickinsonSearch
-
has not hesitated to recognize the legitimacy of protecting reliance and expectational interests. See, e. g., Rakas v. IllinoisSearch
-
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. NewSearch
-
Id., at 465. Similarly, in United States Railroad Retirement Bd. v. FritzSearch
-
U. S., at 178. Finally, in New Orleans v. DukesSearch
-
articulate at any time the purpose or rationale supporting its classification. United States Railroad Retirement Bd. v. FritzSearch
-
U. S., at 179. See also McDonald v. BoardSearch
-
of the relevant governmental decisionmaker. Allied Stores of Ohio, Inc. v. Bow-Search
-
in a footnote to the advantages of historical cost accounting, Brief for Respondent in Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. CountySearch
-
to promote current-value taxation. 16 ers, 358 U. S. 522 , 528-529 (1959). See also Schweiker v. WilsonSearch
-
from a general scheme of taxation necessarily render the overall scheme in- 7 In Allied Stores of Ohio, Inc. v. BowersSearch
-
U. S. 522 (1959), the Court distinguished on similar grounds its decision in Wheeling Steel Corp. v. GlanderSearch
-
mandate, as in this case, than by administrative action, as in Allegheny Pittsburgh. See Sunday Lake Iron Co. v. TownshipSearch
-
from violating state law requiring uniformity of taxation of property. See Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. BrowningSearch
-
Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. CountySearch
-
of King, 264 U. S. 22 , 27-28 (1924). See generally Snowden v. HughesSearch
-
U. S. 1, 8-11 (1944). 17 vidiously discriminatory. See, e. g., Regan v. TaxationSearch
-
F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. VirginiaSearch
-
footnote omitted). Vance v. BradleySearch
-
ordered. JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. In Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. CountySearch
-
A Comment on Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Company v. CountySearch
-
Ibid. (citing Allied Stores of Ohio, Inc. v. BowersSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial