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

Department Of Revenue Of Montana v. Kurth Ranch Et Al.

• 1993 • 511 U.S. 767 • Rehnquist Court
In the case Department of Revenue of Montana v. Kurth Ranch et al., 1993, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a tax imposed by the state of Montana on possession and storage of dangerous drugs was unconstitutional as it violated the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against double jeopardy. The Kurth family had been charged with drug offenses related to their marijuana farming operation and were subsequently assessed this tax following their criminal punishment. The court held that because this tax...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 Rehnquist Court
Term: 1993
Docket: 93-144
511 U.S. 767
114 S. Ct. 1937
128 L. Ed. 2d 767
1994 U.S. LEXIS 4440
Argued: Jan 19, 1994

Department Of Revenue Of Montana v. Kurth Ranch Et Al.

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case Department of Revenue of Montana v. Kurth Ranch et al., 1993, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a tax imposed by the state of Montana on possession and storage of dangerous drugs was unconstitutional as it violated the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against double jeopardy. The Kurth family had been charged with drug offenses related to their marijuana farming operation and were subsequently assessed this tax following their criminal punishment. The court held that because this tax was levied only on those who had been previously convicted, it constituted a second punishment for the same offense, thus violating double jeopardy protections. This decision affirmed an earlier ruling from the Montana Supreme Court which also found in favor of Kurths.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for the Department of Revenue of Montana v. Kurth Ranch case, it was argued that the tax imposed on marijuana by Montana did not violate the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause. The dissenting justices contended that a civil penalty does not constitute punishment in relation to double jeopardy analysis unless there is clear proof that it cannot fairly be seen as remedial, but only as a deterrent or retribution. They believed this standard had not been met in this case and thus disagreed with majority’s view which saw Montana's drug tax as punitive rather than regulatory or revenue-raising measure. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies in how similar cases were handled previously and expressed concern about potential implications of ruling on future taxation issues.

Opinion written by Justice JPStevens
Decided: Jun 06, 1994
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcript
Argued: Oct 05, 2026
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