Opinion ID: 1200134
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Extraordinary Facts Of The Three Cases

Text: 6. Assuming arguendo that the cases are not abberations but do in fact represent exceptions, then they offer the strongest arguments for declaring this case is not such an exception. Each of the exception cases contained unusual and extraordinary conditions that are not present in this case. By applying the alleged exceptions to the general rule, the majority has made the exceptions the rule. In the three cases that represent the exceptions, the Court in attempting to do equity, did not face the constitutional mandate head-on. In Allan, Strickland, and Adams, there may have been other individuals who may have been harmed in the past, but they were, for all practical purposes, unascertainable. The amount of damage suffered by other individuals was also almost impossible to determine. In Allan and Adams there was also the potential of disrupting years of quiet titles and confusing property law. This case, on the other hand, involves one clearly-identified taxpayer who paid the state an ascertainable amount of money in illegal taxes over a specified period of time; therefore, there is no difficulty in determining to whom the taxes should be refunded and for what amount. In addition, such a refund would not disturb property law. The exceptions are built upon a faulty unconstitutional foundation, and they should fall. They are court-made, but not constitutionally allowed.