Source: http://www.volokh.com/posts/1166827091.shtml
Timestamp: 2015-04-27 15:35:22
Document Index: 218641684

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 2', '§ 28', 'art. 1', '§ 14', 'art. 1', '§ 15']

The Volokh Conspiracy - Allodial:
Allodial:
If you own land in Arkansas, Minnesota, or Wisconsin, rest secure in the knowledge that the land is expressly "declared to be allodial" by the state constitution. Ark. Const. art. 2, § 28; Wisc. Const. art. 1, § 14; Minn. Const. art. 1, § 15 ("are allodial" rather than "are declared to be allodial"). It may be igneous, or sedimentary, or metamorphic. It may be alluvial or illuvial (though likely not effluvial). But in any case, it's allodial.
12.22.2006 5:47pm
Do people in Arkansas, Minnesota, and Wisconsin not pay property taxes, as the Wikipedia article suggests they should not?
12.22.2006 5:51pm
You'd prefer it be feudal?
12.22.2006 6:23pm
Oh, and I should have mentioned before: it's evidently not really allodial at all. If it were, MN wouldn't have had to "reform" its eminent domain statutes in the wake of Kelo, since eminent domain would have been illegal anyhow.
While there is some non-crazy historical authority for the proposition that "allodial" means free of property taxes (or at least inheritance taxes), that has not been the normal understanding of the term in the U.S. Rather, the U.S. meaning has simply been ownership outright, without any traditional feudal tenures, but nonetheless subject to property tax and eminent domain. See, e.g., Baker v. Kelley, 11 Minn. 480 (1866); Stevens v. City of Salisbury, 240 Md. 556 (1965); Albertson v. Leca, 447 A.2d 383 (R.I. 1982); De Jong v. Chester County, 98 Pa. Cmwlth. 85 (1986); Dane County v. Every, 131 Wisc. 2d 592 (Wisc. App. 1986) (unpublished) (citing earlier Wisconsin authorities that had interpreted the term this way); Dunn County v. Svee, 143 Wisc. 2d 909 (Wisc. 1988); Juneau County v. Baritsky, 187 Wisc. 2d 292 (Wisc. App. 1994) (unpublished)