Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Board Of County Commissioners Of The City And County Of Denver v. Home Savings Bank

• 1914 • 236 U.S. 101 • White Court
In the case of Board of County Commissioners of the City and County of Denver v. Home Savings Bank, 1914, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving tax assessments. The Home Savings Bank had purchased property at a tax sale after its previous owners failed to pay taxes on it. Later, when additional unpaid taxes were discovered from before the bank's purchase, Denver attempted to collect these back-taxes from Home Savings Bank. The bank argued that they should not be held responsible...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief White Court
Term: 1914
Docket: 126
236 U.S. 101
35 S. Ct. 265
59 L. Ed. 485
1915 U.S. LEXIS 1303
Argued: Jan 15, 1915

Board Of County Commissioners Of The City And County Of Denver v. Home Savings Bank

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Board of County Commissioners of the City and County of Denver v. Home Savings Bank, 1914, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving tax assessments. The Home Savings Bank had purchased property at a tax sale after its previous owners failed to pay taxes on it. Later, when additional unpaid taxes were discovered from before the bank's purchase, Denver attempted to collect these back-taxes from Home Savings Bank. The bank argued that they should not be held responsible for these past-due amounts as they were not disclosed during their acquisition process. The court sided with Home Savings Bank stating that while municipalities have broad powers in assessing and collecting taxes; those powers must be exercised fairly and justly without violating due process rights under Fourteenth Amendment protections. Therefore, since there was no notice given about existing liens or arrears during the time of purchase by Home Saving Banks; it would violate their due process rights if forced to pay them retrospectively.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

The dissenting opinion in the case of Board of County Commissioners of the City and County of Denver v. Home Savings Bank argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax assessment on property owned by a non-resident was incorrect. The dissenters believed that this ruling violated principles of equal protection under law, as it unfairly targeted non-residents for taxation while exempting residents from similar taxes. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Colorado state law regarding tax assessments, arguing that it did not provide sufficient grounds for taxing non-residents at higher rates than residents. Furthermore, they contended that such differential treatment could discourage investment and economic growth within Colorado by deterring out-of-state individuals or entities from purchasing property in the state due to fear of excessive taxation.

Opinion written by Justice OWHolmes
Decided: Jan 25, 1915
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms