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

Moore, Commissioner, v. Fidelity & Deposit Company Et Al.

• 1926 • 272 U.S. 317 • Taft Court
In the case of Moore, Commissioner v. Fidelity & Deposit Company et al., 1926, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state could impose an excise tax on foreign corporations for doing business within its borders. The court ruled that states have the right to levy such taxes as long as they do not interfere with interstate commerce or violate constitutional provisions regarding equal protection and due process. In this particular case, it was decided that Kentucky'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 Taft Court
Term: 1926
Docket: 185
272 U.S. 317
47 S. Ct. 105
71 L. Ed. 273
1926 U.S. LEXIS 4
Argued: Oct 12, 1926

Moore, Commissioner, v. Fidelity & Deposit Company Et Al.

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Moore, Commissioner v. Fidelity & Deposit Company et al., 1926, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state could impose an excise tax on foreign corporations for doing business within its borders. The court ruled that states have the right to levy such taxes as long as they do not interfere with interstate commerce or violate constitutional provisions regarding equal protection and due process. In this particular case, it was decided that Kentucky's imposition of an annual franchise tax on foreign surety companies did not infrive upon these rights and thus upheld its constitutionality.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Moore v. Fidelity & Deposit Company, Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring surety companies to deposit securities with the State Treasurer was incorrect. He contended that this requirement violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by depriving these companies of their property without just compensation. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's assertion that such deposits were necessary for public protection and instead viewed them as an arbitrary exercise of power by the state government. In his view, if states could require such deposits from surety companies, they could also impose similar requirements on other types of businesses which would be equally unconstitutional.

Opinion written by Justice LDBrandeis
Decided: Nov 01, 1926
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