# Madden v. Kentucky Ex Rel. Commissioner

> Supreme Court of the United States · January 29, 1940 · 309 U.S. 83

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9419078

## Case

- **Full name:** Madden, Executor, v. Kentucky, by Reeves, Commissioner of Revenue
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** January 29, 1940
- **Citations:** 309 U.S. 83; 125 A.L.R. 1383; 60 S. Ct. 406; 84 L. Ed. 590; 1940 U.S. LEXIS 956
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Robeets
- **Judges:** Reed, Hughes, Robeets, McReynolds
- **Cited by:** 532 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9419078

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that for tax classifications chal- lenged under the Fourteenth Amendment, “the presumption of constitutionality can be overcome only by the most explicit demonstration that a classification is a hostile and oppressive discrimination against particular persons and classes”
- holding that for tax classifications challenged under the Fourteenth Amendment, "the presumption of constitutionality can be overcome only by the most explicit demonstration that a classification is a hostile and oppressive discrimination against particular persons and classes"
- explaining the party asserting an equal protection violation must present evidence specifically identifying other similarly situated persons and their disparate treatment
- noting that Fourteenth Amendment plaintiff must "negative every conceivable basis” for the law under traditional rational-basis review

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Robeets:
I think that the judgment should be reversed.. Four years ago in Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U. S. 404 , this court held that the equal protection clause and the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit such a discrimination as results from the statute now under review. I adhere to the views expressed in *94 the opinion of the court in that case, and think it should be followed in this.
Mr. Justice McReynolds joins in this opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9419078. Public record. Not legal advice.