State v. Minnesota Federal Savings & Loan Association

15 N.W.2d 568 (1944)

From our private database of 46,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

State v. Minnesota Federal Savings & Loan Association

Minnesota Supreme Court
15 N.W.2d 568 (1944)

  • Written by Robert Cane, JD

Facts

The Minnesota legislature enacted the Minnesota Income Tax Act. The Income Tax Act provided that credit unions were exempt from the Minnesota income or franchise tax. Savings-and-loan associations (savings associations) were not exempt. Credit unions and savings associations are similar in that both receive money from local depositors, both lend money to members, both allow their members to vote on matters, and both are required to set aside substantial deposit reserves. However, credit unions and savings associations are different in several important respects. Savings associations make loans secured by property. Credit unions make mostly personal loans. Credit unions deal with members united by some sort of common bond or group membership. Savings associations deal with a much larger and undefined group of potential customers. Credit unions are supervised by a state official. Savings associations are supervised by a federal board. Credit unions do make loans secured by property, but not to the extent that a savings association makes secured loans. Credit unions have a community of interest among their members that the larger savings associations simply cannot replicate. Minnesota Federal Savings and Loan Association (Minnesota Federal) (defendant) was a savings-and-loan association, which made it ineligible for the tax exemption provided to credit unions. The State of Minnesota (plaintiff) brought an action to collect taxes owed by Minnesota Federal. Minnesota Federal claimed that the state law exempting credit unions from the income or franchise tax violated the uniformity provision of the Minnesota Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it treated credit unions and savings-and-loan associations differently despite a lack of substantial differences between the two types of institutions. The trial court entered judgment for the state. Minnesota Federal appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Magney, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 745,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 745,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,100 briefs, keyed to 987 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 745,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,100 briefs - keyed to 987 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership