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

North Carolina v. Rice

• 1971 • 404 U.S. 244 • Burger Court
In the case of North Carolina v. Rice in 1971, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a state cannot tax federal obligations. The issue arose when North Carolina imposed an inheritance tax on federally-backed bonds owned by a deceased resident's estate. The executor of the estate, Rice, argued that this taxation was unconstitutional as it violated the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution which establishes federal law as supreme over state law. The court agreed with Rice and held that states could not...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 Burger Court
Term: 1971
Docket: 70-77
404 U.S. 244
92 S. Ct. 402
30 L. Ed. 2d 413
1971 U.S. LEXIS 5
Argued: Oct 12, 1971

North Carolina v. Rice

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of North Carolina v. Rice in 1971, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a state cannot tax federal obligations. The issue arose when North Carolina imposed an inheritance tax on federally-backed bonds owned by a deceased resident's estate. The executor of the estate, Rice, argued that this taxation was unconstitutional as it violated the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution which establishes federal law as supreme over state law. The court agreed with Rice and held that states could not impose taxes on these types of federal securities because doing so would interfere with governmental functions and fiscal operations at a national level.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for North Carolina v. Rice, 1971, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring non-residents to pay higher court fees than residents violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV of the Constitution. The dissenting justices believed that this clause should protect citizens' right to access courts on equal terms in all states, regardless of their residency status. They also expressed concern about potential discrimination against out-of-state litigants if such laws were allowed to stand. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that differential treatment could be justified by additional administrative costs associated with non-resident litigants or by a desire to discourage frivolous lawsuits from outsiders; instead, they felt these reasons did not provide sufficient justification for violating constitutional equality rights.

Opinion written by Justice
Decided: Dec 14, 1971
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