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

Cissna v. State Of Tennessee

• 1916 • 242 U.S. 195 • White Court
In the 1916 case of Cissna v. State of Tennessee, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Tennessee, upholding a state law that prohibited corporations from contributing to political campaigns. The plaintiff, Mr. Cissna, was an officer for a corporation and had been indicted under this law for making contributions on behalf of his company to various political candidates during an election campaign. He argued that the statute violated his rights under both federal and state constitutions by...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: 1916
Docket: 89
242 U.S. 195
37 S. Ct. 108
61 L. Ed. 243
1916 U.S. LEXIS 1511
Argued: Nov 10, 1916

Cissna v. State Of Tennessee

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1916 case of Cissna v. State of Tennessee, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Tennessee, upholding a state law that prohibited corporations from contributing to political campaigns. The plaintiff, Mr. Cissna, was an officer for a corporation and had been indicted under this law for making contributions on behalf of his company to various political candidates during an election campaign. He argued that the statute violated his rights under both federal and state constitutions by preventing him from expressing his political preferences through financial support. However, the court disagreed with Cissna's argument stating that while individuals have constitutional rights to express their views and influence public opinion including politics; these protections do not extend to corporations as they are created by laws for specific purposes which don't include influencing elections or legislation. The ruling established important precedent regarding corporate involvement in politics asserting states' right to limit such activities if deemed necessary for maintaining integrity within electoral processes.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for CISSNA v. STATE OF TENNESSEE, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold Tennessee's tax on foreign corporations doing business within its borders violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissenting justices believed that this law unfairly discriminated against out-of-state companies by imposing a heavier tax burden on them than on domestic corporations conducting similar businesses in Tennessee. They contended that such differential treatment between local and foreign entities lacked reasonable basis or justification, thereby infringing upon their constitutional rights to equal protection under laws. Furthermore, they expressed concerns about potential negative impacts of this ruling on interstate commerce and economic competition among states if other jurisdictions were to adopt similar discriminatory taxation policies against non-resident businesses.

Opinion written by Justice EDEWhite
Decided: Dec 11, 1916
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