Case Citator › Farmers Loan & Trust Co. v. Minnesota

Farmers Loan & Trust Co. v. Minnesota

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Abrogated
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
280 U.S. 204
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
36 of 36
Citing cases (total)
36
Treatment dates
1942
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Farmers Loan & Trust Co. v. Minnesota has been abrogated in part: all 36 flagged citations have been read, and the confirmed treatment is listed below. State Tax Commission of Utah v. Aldrich rejected Farmers Loan's rule that the Fourteenth Amendment prevents more than one state from taxing a transfer of intangibles.
More on how this was screened

The separate principle that a state needs jurisdiction over the property or transaction to tax it remains in use.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

36 later cases cite Farmers Loan & Trust Co. v. Minnesota; 36 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Farmers Loan & Trust Co. v. Minnesota?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Abrogated

  • The Supreme Court rejected Farmers Loan's constitutional rule against taxation of intangibles by more than one state.

    State Tax Commission of Utah v. Aldrich · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    First National Bank v. Maine, like its forerunners Farmers Loan & Trust Co. v. Minnesota, 280 U. S. 204, and Baldwin v. Missouri, 281 U. S. 586, read into the Fourteenth Amendment a “rule of immunity from taxation by more than one state.” ... In line with our recent decisions in Curry v. McCanless, Graves v. Elliott and Graves v. Schmidlapp, we repeat that there is no constitutional rule of immunity from taxation of intangibles by more than one State.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Farmers Loan & Trust Co. v. Minnesota and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace