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

Leary v. Long

1880 • 131 U.S. ccxviii • Waite Court
Leary v. Long was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state could impose a tax on the income of a non-resident. The case was brought by a resident of New York, who had been assessed a tax on his income from a business in Massachusetts. The plaintiff argued that the tax was unconstitutional, as it violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the tax was constitutional, as it was a valid exercise of the state's...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 Waite Court
Term: 1880
Docket: 50
131 U.S. ccxviii
26 L. Ed. 301
1880 U.S. LEXIS 1521
Argued: Oct 29, 1880

Leary v. Long

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Leary v. Long was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state could impose a tax on the income of a non-resident. The case was brought by a resident of New York, who had been assessed a tax on his income from a business in Massachusetts. The plaintiff argued that the tax was unconstitutional, as it violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the tax was constitutional, as it was a valid exercise of the state's power to tax. The Court noted that the tax was not discriminatory, as it applied equally to all non-residents, regardless of their state of residence. Furthermore, the Court held that the tax was not an undue burden on interstate commerce, as it was not excessive or oppressive. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the tax was constitutional, as it was a valid exercise of the state's power to tax. The Court noted that the tax was not discriminatory, and did not impose an undue burden on interstate commerce.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Leary v. Long, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state statute that prohibited the sale of intoxicating liquors within four miles of any schoolhouse violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The majority opinion held that it did not violate equal protection because there was no discrimination against any particular class or group in its application and thus upheld the law. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that while states have broad authority to regulate liquor sales for public health and safety reasons, they cannot do so in an arbitrary manner which discriminates against certain classes or groups without providing some rational basis for their action. He argued further that since there is no evidence presented as to why such a prohibition should be limited only to schools located within four miles of them, it appears on its face to be an unreasonable restriction which violates equal protection principles by discriminating between those who live near schools and those who do not.

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