In the Supreme Court of the United States

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "In the Supreme Court of the United States"

Transcription

1 NO In the Supreme Court of the United States SCHOLASTIC BOOK CLUBS, INC., Petitioner, v. RICHARD H. ROBERTS, COMMISSIONER OF TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Tennessee BRIEF IN OPPOSITION ROBERT E. COOPER, JR. Attorney General and Reporter State of Tennessee WILLIAM E. YOUNG Solicitor General CHARLES LARRY LEWIS* Deputy Attorney General BRIAN J. RAMMING Assistant Attorney General OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Tax Division P. O. Box Nashville, TN (615) Larry.Lewis@ag.tn.gov Counsel for Respondent * Counsel of Record Becker Gallagher Cincinnati, OH Washington, D.C

2 i QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Tennessee Court of Appeals correctly determined that out-of-state seller Scholastic Book Clubs, Inc. s use of thousands of Tennessee teachers and schools as its exclusive means of soliciting, communicating, delivering, and administering sales of its products to its customers in Tennessee, thus enabling it to establish and maintain a market for its products in the State, creates sufficient nexus under the Commerce Clause to support an assessment of Tennessee sales and use taxes against Scholastic Book Clubs, Inc.

3 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTION PRESENTED... i TABLE OF CONTENTS... ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES... iii STATEMENT OF THE CASE... 1 REASONS FOR DENYING THE WRIT... 4 I. THE TENNESSEE COURT OF APPEALS APPLIED THE PROPER NEXUS ANALYSIS UNDER EXISTING UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT PRECEDENTS AND PROPERLY DETERMINED THAT SCHOLASTIC HAS SUFFICIENT NEXUS WITH TENNESSEE II. STATE APPELLATE COURTS HAVE CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT SCHOLASTIC HAS SUFFICIENT NEXUS WITH THE RESPECTIVE TAXING STATES III. SCHOLASTIC FAILS TO IDENTIFY ANY REAL ISSUE OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE CONCLUSION... 18

4 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274 (1977)... 8, 12, 16 Hubbard v. The Shores Group, Inc., 855 S.W.2d 924 (Ark. 1993) In re Appeal of Scholastic Book Clubs, Inc., 920 P.2d 947 (Kan. 1996) Pledger v. Troll Book Clubs, 871 S.W.2d 389 (Ark. 1994) Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992)... passim Scholastic Book Clubs, Inc. v. Connecticut Comm r of Revenue Servs., 38 A.3d 1183 (Conn. 2012), cert. denied, No , 2012 WL (U.S. Oct. 9, 2012). 4, 11 Scholastic Book Clubs, Inc. v. Michigan, 567 N.W.2d 692 (Mich. App. 1997), appeal denied, 586 N.W.2d 923 (Mich. 1998) Scholastic Book Clubs, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 207 Cal. App. 3d 734 (1989) Scripto, Inc. v. Carson, 362 U.S. 207 (1960)... 8, 9, 12, 16

5 iv Troll Book Clubs, Inc. v. Tracy, No. 92-Z-590, 1994 WL (Ohio Bd. Tax. App. 1994) Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc. v. Washington Dep t of Revenue, 483 U.S. 232 (1987)... passim STATUTES Tenn. Code Ann (a)(2) (2011) Tenn. Code Ann to -907 (2006 & 2010 Supp.)... 6 Tenn. Code Ann (25), , , to -608 (2006 & 2010 Supp.)... 6 OTHER Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Scholastic Book Clubs, Inc. v. Connecticut Comm r of Revenue Services, No , 2012 WL (U.S. Oct. 9, 2012)... 4 H.R. 2071, 112 th Cong., 1 st Sess. (2012) H.R. 3179, 112 th Cong., 1 st Sess. (2012) S. 1452, 112 th Cong., 1 st Sess. (2012) S. 1832, 112 th Cong., 1 st Sess. (2012)... 17

6 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The petitioner, Scholastic Book Clubs, Inc. (hereinafter Scholastic ), is a Missouri corporation with its principal place of business in Jefferson City, Missouri. Scholastic Book Clubs, Inc. v. Farr, 373 S.W.3d 558 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012) (Pet. App., b2). Scholastic is engaged in the marketing and sale of books and other publications and products to students in primary and secondary schools across the United States, including customers residing in Tennessee. (Id.). Scholastic mails its catalogs and other promotional materials to primary and secondary schools on a monthly basis. (Pet. App., b9). Approximately 8,000 schools in Tennessee participated in Scholastic s program during the period in question here: January 1, 2002 through May 31, 2008 (the audit period ). (Id., b2.). Scholastic has no offices or regular employees who solicit sales in Tennessee. Instead, Scholastic s business model relies exclusively on the activities of school administrators and teachers to carry out virtually all essential business operations. Scholastic relies on the school administration to distribute its catalogs and promotional materials to the teachers and, in turn, Scholastic then depends upon the teachers to distribute its catalogs to students. (Id., b9-10, 13-14). Scholastic expects that the teachers will recommend the books listed in Scholastic s monthly catalogs to their students. The students and their parents then remit their orders and payments to the teachers, who compile the orders on a master form and then forward

7 2 the master form and payment to Scholastic. (Id., b13-14). All orders are processed at Scholastic s fulfillment facility in Missouri. Scholastic delivers the ordered books to the schools by common carrier. (Id., b10, 14). Scholastic again relies upon the teachers to sort and distribute ordered books to the students when they are received by the schools. (Id., b14). Scholastic expects teachers to handle all product returns and exchanges, report damaged items, and issue refunds to students. (Id.). Virtually all of Scholastic s operations, outside those few activities that are undertaken by Scholastic in Missouri, are conducted by these teachers and school employees. Students and parents are not allowed to submit orders directly to Scholastic but must use a participating teacher as a conduit for ordering, paying, receiving, and handling any resulting problems or issues. Teachers and schools work to promote Scholastic s sales not only to enhance the educational advancement of their students but also because they receive bonus points based on sales volume; these bonus points can be redeemed by the teacher in exchange for additional books for classroom use, as well as for computers and other educational items for the students use. (Pet. App., c3-4). The Tennessee Commissioner of Revenue (hereinafter Commissioner ) performed a sales and use tax audit of Scholastic for the period from January 1, 2002, through May 31, 2008 (the audit period ). (Pet. App., b2.). As a result of this audit, the Commissioner assessed Scholastic $3,647, in tax,

8 3 $905, in penalty, plus interest, based on taxable sales in Tennessee in the amount of $34,623,151 during the audit period. (Id.). On March 27, 2009, Scholastic filed suit challenging the Commissioner s assessment, alleging that Tennessee lacks constitutional nexus under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. 1 The case was heard on cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted Scholastic s motion for summary judgment and abated the assessment of tax in its entirety. The Commissioner then appealed the trial court s decision to the Tennessee Court of Appeals. The Tennessee Court of Appeals issued its decision on January 27, 2012, reversing the judgment of the trial court and holding that Scholastic s connections with Tennessee schools and teachers establish sufficient nexus to support the Commissioner s assessment of tax. (Pet. App., b1-14.). The court found that Scholastic has created a de facto marketing and distribution mechanism within Tennessee s schools that utilizes Tennessee teachers to sell books to school children and their parents. (Pet. App., b14). The Court further determined that whether the teachers should be considered agents under Tennessee law 1 Scholastic also initially raised the issues that the Commissioner s assessment violated the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, as well as Article I, Section 8, of the Tennessee Constitution. However, as recognized by the trial court, the sole issue in dispute is whether Scholastic has sufficient nexus with Tennessee to be subject to Tennessee s sales and use tax laws under the federal Commerce Clause. (Pet. App., c2-4).

9 4 was irrelevant to the question of whether Scholastic s significant activities in Tennessee established a substantial nexus for Commerce Clause purposes. (Id., b12). The Supreme Court of Tennessee denied Scholastic s application for discretionary review on June 22, (Pet. App., a1). Scholastic now seeks this Court s review. REASONS FOR DENYING THE WRIT This case is virtually identical to a case from the State of Connecticut that Scholastic sought to have this Court review earlier this year, and which this Court has now declined to review. See Scholastic Book Clubs, Inc. v. Connecticut Comm r of Revenue Services, 38 A.3d 1183, (Conn. 2012), cert. denied, No , 2012 WL (U.S. Oct. 9, 2012). Scholastic used the same marketing strategy and techniques in Tennessee as it did Connecticut. The Connecticut Supreme Court, as did the Tennessee Court of Appeals, found that Scholastic s marketing activities created sufficient connections or nexus to support the imposition of a sales-and-use-tax collection responsibility under the Commerce Clause. Scholastic Book Clubs, Inc. v. Farr, 373 S.W.3d at (Pet. App., b1-14). The reasons cited by Connecticut in support of its opposition to Scholastic s petition for certiorari are equally compelling and determinative in this case. Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Scholastic Book Clubs, Inc. v. Connecticut Comm r of Revenue Services, No , 2012 WL (U.S. Oct. 9, 2012). For decades, Scholastic has been taking advantage of the in-state activities of Tennessee schools and

10 5 teachers, which in large part are funded by taxpayer dollars, to market and sell its products to its targeted customers, Tennessee students and their parents, while ignoring its responsibility to collect and remit Tennessee sales and use tax on those sales. (Id., b2, 13-14). These schools and teachers are the sole means by which Scholastic communicates with its customers, and Scholastic solicits and utilizes the services of these teachers for virtually every sale Scholastic makes to Tennessee students. Without the active support of these Tennessee teachers and schools, no market would exist for Scholastic s products in Tennessee. Scholastic has created a unique sales model under which teachers have a peculiar incentive to represent it and promote sales of its products to a captive audience, their students. Scholastic, however, asserts that it is merely a mail order company lacking a sufficient nexus with Tennessee for purposes of the Commerce Clause, despite its use of thousands of Tennessee schools and teachers to create a de facto marketing and distribution force within Tennessee. (Pet. App., b14). Scholastic s argument is an unconvincing attempt to bootstrap its operations in Tennessee into the relatively narrow safe harbor protections afforded by the Commerce Clause to retailers whose sole contact with the taxing state is by mail or common carrier, as pronounced by this Court in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992). The record demonstrates, as the Tennessee Court of Appeals found, that Scholastic is not strictly a mail order company. Rather, its business model relies exclusively on the marketing, solicitation, and distribution activities carried on within Tennessee by Tennessee schools and teachers. Because these activities go far beyond simple mail order sales, the safe harbor protections described in

11 6 Quill simply do not apply and Scholastic cannot escape its responsibility to collect and remit Tennessee sales and use tax. The decision of the Tennessee Court of Appeals was correct, and Scholastic s petition should be denied. I. THE TENNESSEE COURT OF APPEALS APPLIED THE PROPER NEXUS ANALYSIS UNDER EXISTING UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT PRECEDENTS AND PROPERLY DETERMINED THAT SCHOLASTIC HAS SUFFICIENT NEXUS WITH TENNESSEE. Tennessee imposes a tax on the sale at retail and use of all tangible personal property in Tennessee. Tenn. Code Ann to -907 (2006 & 2010 Supp.). Persons selling tangible personal property in Tennessee are exercising a taxable privilege and are, unless exempted, required to collect and remit sales and use tax on tangible personal property sold at retail. See Tenn. Code Ann (25), , , to -608 (2006 & 2010 Supp.). The Tennessee Court of Appeals correctly concluded that Scholastic cannot escape its responsibility to collect and remit Tennessee sales and use tax through the narrow safe harbor existing under the Commerce Clause. (Pet. App., b14.). Under the Commerce Clause, interstate commerce may be required to bear its fair share of state taxes. The limits that do exist on a state s taxing power are narrowly construed. These include the requirement that the person or entity subjected to the tax have substantial contacts or nexus so as to create a physical presence within

12 7 the taxing state and that there exist a relationship between the tax and state-provided services. Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298, 313 (1992). This limitation is intended to ensure that state taxation does not unduly burden interstate commerce. Id. Scholastic argues that the Commissioner must establish the existence of a legal relationship of some kind between the teachers and Scholastic in order to establish substantial nexus. (Pet., 11). To the contrary, in order to establish nexus it is entirely unnecessary to pigeonhole the teachers and schools as agents of Scholastic, or to dwell on the formalities of what legal relationship may exist between them. It is the actions of the Tennessee teachers and schools on Scholastic s behalf not the semantics defining their legal relationship that determines nexus. Scholastic s arguments here are reminiscent of the formalism and legal phraseology that was explicitly disavowed nearly twenty years ago by this Court. See Quill, 504 U.S. at Scholastic asserts that this Court should take this opportunity to reaffirm the bright-line drawn in Quill. (Pet., 23). This Court s decision in Quill established a limited safe harbor for retailers whose only contact with a state is by mail or common carrier. As the Tennessee Court of Appeals correctly acknowledged, when such safe harbor protections do not apply to a retailer s business practices, nexus analysis must focus on the nature and extent of the retailer's activities and the extent to which the in-state individuals activities are associated with the retailer s ability to establish and maintain a market in the state. (Pet. App., B8, B12-13) (citing Tyler Pipe Industries Inc. v. Department

13 8 of Revenue, 483 U.S. 232, 249 (1987)); see also Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274, 279 (1977); Scripto, Inc. v. Carson, 362 U.S. 207, (1960). The critical factor in establishing nexus through the physical presence of a taxpayer in the taxing state is whether the activities performed in-state on behalf of the taxpayer are significantly associated with the taxpayer s ability to establish and maintain a market in this state for the sales. Tyler Pipe, 483 U.S. at 250. Thus, contrary to Scholastic s assertions, the bright line of Quill is not drawn so sharply as to disregard all activities undertaken by third parties on behalf of Scholastic. Scholastic s argument fails to recognize that, in the present case, the Tennessee Court of Appeals applied the proper test for establishing nexus because Scholastic s operations fall beyond the narrow safe harbor of Quill. This Court has held time and again that the test for nexus may be satisfied through the actions of third parties taken on the taxpayer s behalf in the taxing jurisdiction, regardless of how those third parties may be legally characterized. In Scripto, Inc. v. Carson, 362 U.S. 207 (1960), the Court determined that a use-tax-collection duty was properly imposed upon an out-of-state seller that had no offices, employees, or property in the taxing state but conducted its in-state solicitation through independent contractors. The Court noted that the focus for determining whether sufficient nexus exists is the nature and extent of the [taxpayer s] activities in the taxing state, and it rejected the taxpayer s claim premised on the fact that the salesmen were not regular employees.

14 9 [S]uch a fine distinction is without constitutional significance. The formal shift in the contractual tagging of the salesman as independent neither results in changing his local function of solicitation nor bears upon its effectiveness in securing a substantial flow of goods into Florida.... The test is simply the nature and extent of the activities of the appellant [taxpayer] in Florida. Id., at The independent contractors in Scripto did not accept orders or payments in Florida but forwarded orders received in Florida to the taxpayer s out-of-state headquarters for acceptance. Thus, this Court found that those representatives acting on the taxpayer s behalf in the taxing state enabled the taxpayer to establish a market for its products within the state and to obtain a substantial flow of revenue by virtue of those contacts. Such contacts were found to be sufficient to support Florida s imposition of a use-taxcollection duty. The significance of the relationship between the taxpayer and its in-state representatives was revisited by the Court in Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc. v. Washington Dep t of Revenue, 483 U.S. 232 (1987). There the Court again stressed that even though the taxpayer s in-state representatives were independent contractors and not agents, this fine distinction is without constitutional significance. Id. at 250. The Court agreed with the Washington Supreme Court s conclusion that the crucial factor governing nexus is whether the activities performed in-state on behalf of

15 10 the taxpayer are significantly associated with the taxpayer s ability to establish and maintain a market in this state for the sales. Id. The decision of the Tennessee Court of Appeals in this case is consistent with this Court s precedents. The Tennessee schools, administrators, and teachers utilized by Scholastic were critical and indeed absolutely necessary for Scholastic to maintain and protect its extremely lucrative Tennessee market. Scholastic used the teachers and schools in Tennessee to create a de facto marketing and distribution mechanism for Scholastic, thus creating the substantial contacts and physical presence in Tennessee necessary to allow state taxation under the Commerce Clause. (Pet. App., b14). Indeed, Scholastic s entire business model was dependant on over 8,000 Tennessee teachers and schools to produce over $34,000,000 in sales to students at Tennessee schools during the five-and-a-half-year audit period. (Id., b2, 14). Contrary to Scholastic s assertions, the teachers and schools were more than mere customers of Scholastic; they served as the only conduit between Scholastic and students and their parents and thus enabled and facilitated Scholastic in its multi-million-dollar sales effort in Tennessee. Under Scholastic s sales model, the teachers and schools distribute Scholastic s catalogs to students, collect students orders and payments, handle problems encountered by students with their orders with Scholastic, distribute the items ordered to the students, and receive valuable bonus points redeemable for educational merchandise for doing so. (Pet. App., c3-4). Indeed, neither Scholastic nor its

16 11 employees have any direct contact with the students and parents who ultimately purchase the bulk of Scholastic s products, instead relying exclusively on Tennessee teachers and schools to develop and handle these pivotal relationships for Scholastic. (Pet. App., b13-14). II. STATE APPELLATE COURTS HAVE CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT SCHOLASTIC HAS SUFFICIENT NEXUS WITH THE RESPECTIVE TAXING STATES. The issue before this Court has been considered by several state appellate courts. Most have found sufficient nexus when reviewing Scholastic s activities within the taxing state. See Scholastic Book Clubs, Inc. v. Connecticut Comm r of Revenue Services, 38 A.3d 1183, (Conn. 2012), cert. denied, No , 2012 WL (U.S. Oct. 9, 2012); Scholastic Book Clubs, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 207 Cal. App. 3d 734, (1989); In re Appeal of Scholastic Book Clubs, Inc., 920 P.2d 947, (Kan. 1996). Indeed, this is so because Scholastic s business model is the same in every state. In each of these decisions, the appellate courts determined that the extent of the teachers marketing, communication, solicitation, and distribution activities in the taxing state played key roles in Scholastic s ability to establish and maintain a market within the state. In each instance, the facts, which are the same as those presented here, established sufficient nexus and took Scholastic outside the limited safe harbor protections set forth in Quill. Of particular note is Scholastic s recent litigation in Connecticut. Scholastic Book Clubs, Inc. v. Connecticut

17 12 Comm r of Revenue Services, 38 A.3d 1183 (Conn. 2012), cert. denied, No , 2012 WL (U.S. Oct. 9, 2012), involved the identical facts and analysis as the present case. Like the Tennessee Court of Appeals, the Connecticut Supreme Court determined that nexus was satisfied under this Court s nexus analysis in Scripto, Tyler Pipe, and Complete Auto, and concluded that Quill's safe harbor did not apply because the teachers... serve as the only means through which the plaintiff communicates with its customers in the state. Id. at As noted above, this Court denied certiorari, and, for the same reasons, it should do so here. Only one state appellate court has determined that nexus was lacking. See Scholastic Book Clubs, Inc. v. Michigan, 567 N.W.2d 692 (Mich. App. 1997), appeal denied, 586 N.W.2d 923 (Mich. 1998). 2 The Michigan court however, incorrectly focused its analysis on the legal characterization of the relationship between the out-of-state taxpayer and the teachers and schools in its determination of the existence of nexus, while ignoring the extent of the teacher s activities on behalf of Scholastic. The Michigan court simply held that physical presence requires the existence of an agency relationship under Michigan law and failed to undertake any further nexus analysis. See id. at Scholastic also relies on the case of Troll Book Clubs, Inc. v. Tracy, No. 92-Z-590, 1994 WL (Ohio Bd. Tax. App. 1994) in support of its petition. Troll Book Clubs is an administrative decision from Ohio that was not subject to any form of judicial review and is therefore of little value to the present discussion.

18 13 Scholastic attempts to put Arkansas in the same camp as Michigan, but that characterization is incorrect. In Pledger v. Troll Book Clubs; 871 S.W.2d 389 (Ark. 1994), the Arkansas Supreme Court never reached the issue of sufficient nexus because the argument had been waived; both the taxpayer and the State of Arkansas had previously argued that the existence of an agency relationship was a prerequisite to a finding of nexus. Id. at In declining to address the issue of whether substantial nexus may be found in the absence of an agency relationship, the Arkansas Supreme Court stated: In oral argument before this court, there was considerable discussion about whether a substantial nexus might be found with proof of something less than agency. However, that is an issue we do not reach because it was not raised below, and we have often written that we will not address an issue on appeal which was not raised below. Id. at 392 (citing Hubbard v. The Shores Group, Inc., 855 S.W.2d 924 (Ark. 1993)). Thus, although the parties attempted to address the issue when the case reached the Arkansas Supreme Court, the court declined to consider it. Because the Michigan and Arkansas courts never applied the proper nexus analysis, neither case is particularly helpful when considering whether Scholastic s business model creates the substantial contacts and physical presence in Tennessee necessary to allow state taxation under the Commerce Clause.

19 14 In short, Scholastic s argument that it faces inconsistent Commerce Clause decisions in the various states is misleading. There is no crazy quilt of decisions as alleged by Scholastic, even as to this particular and unusual sales model. Only those state appellate courts that have refused fully to address the nexus issue have failed to reach the correct conclusion that, under Scholastic s peculiar business model, sufficient nexus exists in the taxing state. Every state appellate court that has undertaken a complete review of Scholastic s operations and applied the appropriate nexus analysis has come to the same conclusion as the Tennessee Court of Appeals and determined that sufficient nexus exists. III. SCHOLASTIC FAILS TO IDENTIFY ANY REAL ISSUE OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE. In part, Scholastic would have this Court grant its petition based on Scholastic s assertion that under the current state of Commerce Clause analysis, all retailers now find themselves in a quagmire of Commerce Clause rights that vary from state to state. (Pet., 9). Indeed, Scholastic contends it is a seller caught in a war between state courts over its Commerce Clause rights. (Id., at 19). Nothing could be further from the truth, and this Court should reject this argument. Like any other business that operates on a nationwide level, Scholastic already must contend with a wide variety of taxing jurisdictions on a daily basis. Most other retailers manage to navigate their way through this quagmire ; the simple fact that Scholastic

20 15 must do so as well does not raise a matter of national significance. Regardless, as discussed above, most state appellate courts that have considered the issue have been in agreement on how to apply nexus analysis to Scholastic s business model. The nexus analysis in cases that involve taxpayers whose activities fall outside the limited safe harbor of Quill necessarily relies heavily on the specific facts of those cases. Nexus analysis by its very nature is dependent on the nature and extent of the activities conducted in a taxing state. And Scholastic s facts are unique to its own business operations. Simply put, any retailer other than Scholastic that is directly affected by the Scholastic line of cases would have to be operating in a manner virtually identical to that of Scholastic. It is therefore very unlikely that this line of cases implicates any other retailers nationwide. Indeed, Scholastic has enticed thousands of teachers in Tennessee to represent its interests through exploiting the teachers natural desire to promote reading, through piggybacking on the teachers unusual credibility with their students and the students desire to please them, and through the bonus points program that provides valuable merchandise for classroom use. This unique sales model is not typical of other mail order sellers and offers a poor context in which to establish or elaborate on a broad constitutional standard for nexus. Finally, Scholastic argues that this Court should grant its petition to reaffirm the bright line rule in Quill. (Pet., 23). In doing so, Scholastic is asking this Court to create a new uniform rule that would resolve any conflict among the state courts regarding how

21 16 third party activities should be factored into nexus analysis. Scholastic does not explain how the new uniform rule would operate and, more importantly, Scholastic again refuses to recognize that the safe harbor protections of Quill simply do not apply to Scholastic s operations. Scholastic is far different from the typical mail order company. Scholastic uses thousands of schools and teachers to conduct its very profitable business operations within Tennessee. Without the efforts of these teachers, Scholastic s sales would disappear. Scholastic s argument also fails to recognize that this Court has, through its prior jurisprudence, already completed the task of providing Scholastic with a uniform rule for nexus analysis. This Court has held, time and again and in a clear and concise fashion, that when looking to establish nexus through the physical presence of the taxpayer in a taxing state through a third party, courts must focus on whether the activities performed in-state on behalf of the taxpayer are significantly associated with the taxpayer s ability to establish and maintain a market in this state for the sales. Tyler Pipe, 483 U.S. at 250. See also Scripto, 362 U.S. at 211; Complete Auto, 430 U.S. at 281. This test applies regardless of how the in-state and out-ofstate taxpayer choose to characterize their relationship. Indeed, this Court has expressly disavowed utilizing semantics or legal phraseology to establish the validity of state taxing statutes under the Commerce Clause. Quill, 504 U.S. at A more clear and uniform rule of nexus analysis for companies whose activities fall outside Quill could not reasonably exist. Simply because Scholastic does not

22 17 favor the present state of Commerce Clause nexus analysis does not mean this case rises to the level of national import that would require this Court to revisit its previous Commerce Clause decisions. Likewise, the Court has already established a clear line of decisions and it need not engage in the creation of a new uniform rule for Commerce Clause analysis that, even as Scholastic points out, is a task best left to Congress. Congress should be allowed to continue its study and possible refinement of state taxing powers in this area without the imposition of additional strictures by this Court. 3 It is indeed ironic that Scholastic seeks to avoid collection of Tennessee s sales and use tax which, under Tennessee law, is the primary source of funding for the very Tennessee schools that constitute the crux of Scholastic s successful marketing efforts. See Tenn. Code Ann (a)(2) (2011) (allocating over 65% of sales and use tax collections exclusively for educational purposes). Here, sufficient nexus exists to require Scholastic to collect and pay its fair share of Tennessee s sales and use tax in return for the services the State provides in support of Scholastic s business activities in Tennessee. 3 A number of bills presently are pending before Congress that address state taxation of out-of-state sellers. See, e.g., H.R. 2071, 112 th Cong., 1 st Sess. (2012); S. 1452, 112 th Cong., 1 st Sess. (2012); H.R. 3179, 112 th Cong., 1 st Sess. (2012); S. 1832, 112 th Cong., 1 st Sess. (2012).

23 18 CONCLUSION For all of the reasons set forth herein, the petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied. Respectfully submitted, ROBERT E. COOPER, JR. Attorney General and Reporter State of Tennessee WILLIAM E. YOUNG Solicitor General CHARLES LARRY LEWIS* Deputy Attorney General BRIAN J. RAMMING Assistant Attorney General OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Tax Division P. O. Box Nashville, TN (615) Larry.Lewis@ag.tn.gov Counsel for Defendant-Respondent RICHARD H. ROBERTS Commissioner of Revenue State of Tennessee * Counsel of Record Dated: October 25, 2012

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE December 13, 2011 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE December 13, 2011 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE December 13, 2011 Session SCHOLASTIC BOOK CLUBS, INC. v. REAGAN FARR, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, STATE OF TENNESSEE Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court

More information

In the Supreme Court of the United States

In the Supreme Court of the United States NO. 14-452 In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF KANSAS, v. SIDNEY J. GLEASON, Petitioner, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Kansas REPLY BRIEF OF PETITIONER

More information

pìéêéãé=`çìêí=çñ=íüé=råáíéç=pí~íéë=

pìéêéãé=`çìêí=çñ=íüé=råáíéç=pí~íéë= No. 13-259 IN THE pìéêéãé=`çìêí=çñ=íüé=råáíéç=pí~íéë= AMAZON.COM LLC AND AMAZON SERVICES LLC, Petitioners, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE; ROBERT L. MEGNA, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY

More information

In the Supreme Court of the United States

In the Supreme Court of the United States NO. 14-450 In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF KANSAS, v. Petitioner, REGINALD DEXTER CARR, JR., Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Kansas REPLY BRIEF

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE November 16, 2016 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE November 16, 2016 Session 01/20/2017 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE November 16, 2016 Session CONCORD ENTERPRISES OF KNOXVILLE, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT Appeal

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 17-494 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States SOUTH DAKOTA, PETITIONER, v. WAYFAIR, INC., OVERSTOCK. CO, INC. AND NEWEGG, INC. RESPONDENTS. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court

More information

In the Supreme Court of the United States

In the Supreme Court of the United States NO. 14-449 In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF KANSAS, v. JONATHAN D. CARR, Petitioner, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Kansas REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONER

More information

What Does the Wayfair Ruling Mean for Your Organization?

What Does the Wayfair Ruling Mean for Your Organization? What Does the Wayfair Ruling Mean for Your Organization? August 14, 2018 TO RECEIVE CPE CREDIT Individuals Participate in entire webinar Answer polls when they are provided Groups Group leader is the person

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE May 19, 2010 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE May 19, 2010 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE May 19, 2010 Session KAY AND KAY CONTRACTING, LLC v. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Appeal from the Claims Commission for the State of Tennessee

More information

In the Supreme Court of the United States

In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 15-1442 In the Supreme Court of the United States THE GILLETTE COMPANY, THE PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC., AND SIGMA-ALDRICH, INC., v. CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE

More information

Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. Plaintiffs American Catalog Mailers Association ( ACMA ) and

Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. Plaintiffs American Catalog Mailers Association ( ACMA ) and STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA ) ) SS COUNTY OF HUGHES ) IN CIRCUIT COURT SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT AMERICAN CATALOG MAILERS ASSOCIATION and NETCHOICE, _ vs. Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ANDY GERLACH,

More information

Streamlined Sales Tax Project

Streamlined Sales Tax Project Streamlined Sales Tax Project (SSTP) Update FTA Conference on Revenue Estimation & Tax Research Diane L. Hardt Wisconsin Department of Revenue September 21-24, 2003 Streamlined Sales Tax Project Background

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 15-1384 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- JEFFREY R. GILLIAM,

More information

Supreme Court collection

Supreme Court collection Page 1 of 9 Search Law School Search Cornell LII / Legal Information Institute Supreme Court collection Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (91-0194), 504 U.S. 298 (1992). Other [ White ] HTML version WordPerfect

More information

STATE OF INDIANA ) IN MARION SUPERIOR COURT 1 COMMERCIAL COURT DOCKET COUNTY OF MARION ) CAUSE NO. 49D PL

STATE OF INDIANA ) IN MARION SUPERIOR COURT 1 COMMERCIAL COURT DOCKET COUNTY OF MARION ) CAUSE NO. 49D PL STATE OF INDIANA ) IN MARION SUPERIOR COURT 1 )SS: COMMERCIAL COURT DOCKET COUNTY OF MARION ) CAUSE NO. 49D01-1706-PL-025964 AMERICAN CATALOG MAILERS ) ASSOCIATION and NETCHOICE, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v.

More information

No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES LUMMI NATION, ET AL., PETITIONERS SAMISH INDIAN TRIBE, ET AL.

No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES LUMMI NATION, ET AL., PETITIONERS SAMISH INDIAN TRIBE, ET AL. No. 05-445 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES LUMMI NATION, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. SAMISH INDIAN TRIBE, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON ASSIGNED ON BRIEFS MAY 24, 2007

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON ASSIGNED ON BRIEFS MAY 24, 2007 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON ASSIGNED ON BRIEFS MAY 24, 2007 JOSHUA L. CARTER v. GEORGE LITTLE, ET AL. Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Lake County No. 5315 J. Steven Stafford,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON January 21, 2009 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON January 21, 2009 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON January 21, 2009 Session BRYAN GIBSON v. DAWNE JONES Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Shelby County No. CH-06-0488-2 Arnold B. Goldin, Chancellor

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE July 10, 2009 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE July 10, 2009 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE July 10, 2009 Session HERITAGE EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC. ET AL. v. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES Appeal from the Chancery Court

More information

In the Supreme Court of the United States

In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 07-1370 In the Supreme Court of the United States LONG JOHN SILVER S, INC., v. ERIN COLE, ET AL. Petitioner, Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE March 8, 2011 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE March 8, 2011 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE March 8, 2011 Session READY MIX, USA, LLC., v. JEFFERSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE Appeal from the Chancery Court for Jefferson County No. 99-113 Hon. Jon Kerry

More information

CUMBERLAND MANOR NURSING HOME, Petitioner, vs. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BUREAU OF HEALTH LICENSURE AND REGULATION, Respondent

CUMBERLAND MANOR NURSING HOME, Petitioner, vs. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BUREAU OF HEALTH LICENSURE AND REGULATION, Respondent University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 7-17-2008 CUMBERLAND MANOR NURSING

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL ACTION

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL ACTION IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL ACTION STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, CASE NO. v. Plaintiff,

More information

PETITIONER S REPLY BRIEF

PETITIONER S REPLY BRIEF No. 12-148 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States HITACHI HOME ELECTRONICS (AMERICA), INC., Petitioner, v. THE UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; and ROSA HERNANDEZ, PORT DIRECTOR,

More information

In the Supreme Court of the United States

In the Supreme Court of the United States NO. 15-6 In the Supreme Court of the United States MEDYTOX SOLUTIONS, INC., SEAMUS LAGAN AND WILLIAM G. FORHAN, Petitioners, v. INVESTORSHUB.COM, INC., Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs December 5, 2007

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs December 5, 2007 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs December 5, 2007 DANNY RAY MEEKS v. TENNESSEE BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County No. 07-79-IV

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE February 4, 2010 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE February 4, 2010 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE February 4, 2010 Session FRANKE ELLIOTT, ET AL. v. ICON IN THE GULCH, LLC Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County No. 09-477-I Claudia Bonnyman,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON ASSIGNED ON BRIEFS JANUARY 14, 2009

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON ASSIGNED ON BRIEFS JANUARY 14, 2009 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON ASSIGNED ON BRIEFS JANUARY 14, 2009 ANTWONE J. TERRY v. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, ET AL. Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Lauderdale County

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs, February 26, 2004

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs, February 26, 2004 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs, February 26, 2004 CBM PACKAGE LIQUOR, INC., ET AL., v. THE CITY OF MARYVILLE, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Blount County

More information

S T A T E O F T E N N E S S E E OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PO BOX NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE February 3, Opinion No.

S T A T E O F T E N N E S S E E OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PO BOX NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE February 3, Opinion No. S T A T E O F T E N N E S S E E OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PO BOX 20207 NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37202 February 3, 2012 Opinion No. 12-11 Growth and Development Fees and Impact Fees Levied by Local Utilities

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE May 7, 2008 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE May 7, 2008 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE May 7, 2008 Session STEPHEN STRAIN v. TENNESSEE BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County No. 06-2867-III Ellen Hobbs

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 12-1286 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- JOSEPH DINICOLA,

More information

In the Supreme Court of the United States

In the Supreme Court of the United States NOS. 22O145 & 22O146, Original (Consolidated) In the Supreme Court of the United States DELAWARE, v. Plaintiff, PENNSYLVANIA AND WISCONSIN, Defendants. ARKANSAS, et al., v. DELAWARE, Plaintiffs, Defendant.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON On-Brief July 14, 2005

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON On-Brief July 14, 2005 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON On-Brief July 14, 2005 JAMES C. BREER v. QUENTON WHITE A Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Lauderdale County No. 13,049 The Honorable Martha B. Brasfield,

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 15-1442 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States THE GILLETTE COMPANY, THE PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC., AND SIGMA-ALDRICH, INC., v. Petitioners, CALIFORNIA

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE June 28, 2011 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE June 28, 2011 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE June 28, 2011 Session RANDSTAD NORTH AMERICA, L.P. v. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT An Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson

More information

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Cite as: 532 U. S. (2001) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of

More information

United States Supreme Court Considering A California Appellate Court Opinion Invalidating A Class Action Arbitration Waiver

United States Supreme Court Considering A California Appellate Court Opinion Invalidating A Class Action Arbitration Waiver United States Supreme Court Considering A California Appellate Court Opinion Invalidating A Class Action Arbitration Waiver By: Roland C. Goss August 31, 2015 On October 6, 2015, the second day of this

More information

In the Supreme Court of the United States

In the Supreme Court of the United States NOS. 22O145 & 22O146, Original (Consolidated) In the Supreme Court of the United States DELAWARE, v. Plaintiff, PENNSYLVANIA AND WISCONSIN, Defendants. ARKANSAS, et al., v. DELAWARE, Plaintiffs, Defendant.

More information

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Cite as: 537 U. S. (2002) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of

More information

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 19a0011n.06. No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 19a0011n.06. No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 19a0011n.06 No. 18-1118 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT KELLY SERVICES, INC., v. Plaintiff-Appellee, DALE DE STENO; JONATHAN PERSICO; NATHAN

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 15-290 In the Supreme Court of the United States Ë UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, v. HAWKES CO., INC., et al., Ë Petitioner, Respondents. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States

More information

In the Supreme Court of the United States

In the Supreme Court of the United States NO. 11-1377 In the Supreme Court of the United States NITRO-LIFT TECHNOLOGIES, L.L.C., Petitioner, v. EDDIE LEE HOWARD and SHANE D. SCHNEIDER, Respondents. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme

More information

E-commerce, Remote Sales, Amazon Laws and DMA

E-commerce, Remote Sales, Amazon Laws and DMA E-commerce, Remote Sales, Amazon Laws and DMA National Conference of State Legislatures Since 1975, the National Conference of State Legislatures has been the champion of state legislatures. We have helped

More information

~n t~e ~reme q~ourt o( t~e ~ln~tel~ ~tate~ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

~n t~e ~reme q~ourt o( t~e ~ln~tel~ ~tate~ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI No. 09-223 Supreme Court, U.S. FILED OCT 2-2009 OFRCE OF THE CLERK ~n t~e ~reme q~ourt o( t~e ~ln~tel~ ~tate~ RICHARD A. LEVIN, Tax Commissioner of Ohio, Petitioner, V. COMMERCE ENERGY, INC., et al., Respondents.

More information

In the Supreme Court of the United States

In the Supreme Court of the United States NO. 15-324 In the Supreme Court of the United States JO GENTRY, et al., v. MARGARET RUDIN, Petitioners, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs November 21, 2005

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs November 21, 2005 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs November 21, 2005 GARRY RECTOR v. DACCO, INC. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Putnam County No. 04J0235 John A. Turnbull, Judge No.

More information

Nos & IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

Nos & IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Nos. 11-11021 & 11-11067 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT STATE OF FLORIDA, by and through Attorney General Pam Bondi, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees / Cross-Appellants, v.

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 10-804 In the Supreme Court of the United States ALFORD JONES, v. Petitioner, ALVIN KELLER, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, AND MICHAEL CALLAHAN, ADMINISTRATOR OF RUTHERFORD CORRECTIONAL

More information

In the Supreme Court of the United States

In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 15-1054 In the Supreme Court of the United States CURTIS SCOTT, PETITIONER v. ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

More information

In the Supreme Court of the United States

In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 15-1174 In the Supreme Court of the United States MARLON SCARBER, PETITIONER v. CARMEN DENISE PALMER ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

More information

Nos , IN THE Supreme Court of the United States. DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION, ET AL., Petitioners, v.

Nos , IN THE Supreme Court of the United States. DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION, ET AL., Petitioners, v. Nos. 04-1704, 04-1724 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States OCTOBER TERM, 2005 DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION, ET AL., Petitioners, v. CHARLOTTE CUNO, ET AL., Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 13-307 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- DENNIS DEMAREE,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE July 12, 2005 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE July 12, 2005 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE July 12, 2005 Session LINDA KISSELL d/b/a FULL MOON SPORTS BAR AND DRIVING RANGE v. McMINN COUNTY COMMISSION, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE December 13, 2017 Session

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE December 13, 2017 Session IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE December 13, 2017 Session 06/21/2018 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. HARLEY CROSLAND Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lewis County No. 2016-CR-74 Joseph

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 16-1194 In the Supreme Court of the United States Ë KINDERACE, LLC, v. CITY OF SAMMAMISH, Ë Petitioner, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Washington State Court of Appeals Ë BRIEF

More information

COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE APPEAL FROM THE CHANCERY COURT FOR DAVIDSON COUNTY AT NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE

COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE APPEAL FROM THE CHANCERY COURT FOR DAVIDSON COUNTY AT NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE PORTER WILLIAMS, ) ) Petitioner/Appellant, ) Appeal No. ) 01-A-01-9604-CH-00177 v. ) ) Davidson Chancery REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL ) No. 94-1089-I COMMISSION FOR THE ) STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) Respondent/Appellee.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE ASSIGNED TO WESTERN SECTION ON BRIEFS MARCH 30, 2007

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE ASSIGNED TO WESTERN SECTION ON BRIEFS MARCH 30, 2007 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE ASSIGNED TO WESTERN SECTION ON BRIEFS MARCH 30, 2007 WILLIAM W. YORK v. TENNESSEE BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS BATES ASSOCIATES, L.L.C., Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant- Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION September 14, 2010 9:15 a.m. v No. 288826 Wayne Circuit Court 132 ASSOCIATES, L.L.C.,

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 12-13 In The Supreme Court of the United States BIPARTISAN LEGAL ADVISORY GROUP OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Petitioner, v. NANCY GILL, ET AL., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ

More information

THE AVAILABILITY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ACTIONS BY AN INTERSTATE COMPACT AGENCY. Jeffrey B. Litwak 1

THE AVAILABILITY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ACTIONS BY AN INTERSTATE COMPACT AGENCY. Jeffrey B. Litwak 1 THE AVAILABILITY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ACTIONS BY AN INTERSTATE COMPACT AGENCY I. Introduction Jeffrey B. Litwak 1 An interstate compact agency is a creature of a compact between two or more states. Like

More information

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-14-650 Opinion Delivered February 26, 2015 THERNELL HUNDLEY V. APPELLANT RAY HOBBS, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION APPELLEE APPEAL FROM THE JEFFERSON COUNTY

More information

No In the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

No In the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Case: 14-1341 Document: 27 Filed: 04/04/2014 Page: 1 APRIL DEBOER, et al., v. No. 14-1341 In the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Plaintiffs-Appellees, RICHARD SNYDER, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

More information

In The Supreme Court of the United States

In The Supreme Court of the United States No. 10-1014 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- COMMONWEALTH OF

More information

COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE APPEAL FROM THE CHANCERY COURT FOR BEDFORD COUNTY AT SHELBYVILLE, TENNESSEE

COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE APPEAL FROM THE CHANCERY COURT FOR BEDFORD COUNTY AT SHELBYVILLE, TENNESSEE J. HAROLD SHANKLE, ) ) Plaintiff/Appellant, ) Appeal No. ) 01-A-01-9609-CH-00387 v. ) ) Bedford Chancery THE BEDFORD COUNTY BOARD OF ) No. 20,492 EDUCATION, THE BEDFORD COUNTY ) BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,

More information

No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 17-5716 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES TIMOTHY D. KOONS, KENNETH JAY PUTENSEN, RANDY FEAUTO, ESEQUIEL GUTIERREZ, AND JOSE MANUEL GARDEA, PETITIONERS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON PETITION

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Submitted on Briefs February 8, 2008

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Submitted on Briefs February 8, 2008 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Submitted on Briefs February 8, 2008 DANNY RAY MEEKS v. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION Appeal from the Chancery Court for Hickman County No. 06-393C

More information

IN THE DAEWOO ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO., LTD., UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

IN THE DAEWOO ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO., LTD., UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN THE DAEWOO ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO., LTD., V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE January 31, 2001 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE January 31, 2001 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE January 31, 2001 Session ORION PACIFIC, INC. v. EXCHANGE PLASTICS COMPANY Appeal from the Circuit Court for Rutherford County No. 43504 Robert E. Corlew,

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 14-708 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- EARL TRUVIA; GREGORY

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE S COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE THREE-YEAR CYCLE REPORT OF THE FAMILY LAW RULES COMMITTEE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE S COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE THREE-YEAR CYCLE REPORT OF THE FAMILY LAW RULES COMMITTEE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA FAMILY LAW RULES CASE NO. 08-09 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE S COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE THREE-YEAR CYCLE REPORT OF THE FAMILY LAW RULES

More information

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA No. 16-6316 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES November 2, 2016 MICHAEL DAMON RIPPO, Petitioner, V. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE

More information

In the Supreme Court of the United States

In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 13-301 In the Supreme Court of the United States UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER v. MICHAEL CLARKE, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH

More information

In The Supreme Court of the United States

In The Supreme Court of the United States NO. 13-638 In The Supreme Court of the United States ABDUL AL QADER AHMED HUSSAIN, v. Petitioner, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States; CHARLES T. HAGEL, Secretary of Defense; JOHN BOGDAN, Colonel,

More information

pìéêéãé=`çìêí=çñ=íüé=råáíéç=pí~íéë=

pìéêéãé=`çìêí=çñ=íüé=råáíéç=pí~íéë= No. 12-842 IN THE pìéêéãé=`çìêí=çñ=íüé=råáíéç=pí~íéë= REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA, v. NML CAPITAL, LTD., Petitioner, Respondent. On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For

More information

No ANNETTE CARMICHAEL, Individually, and as Guardian for KEITH CARMICHAEL, an incapacitated adult, Petitioners, V.

No ANNETTE CARMICHAEL, Individually, and as Guardian for KEITH CARMICHAEL, an incapacitated adult, Petitioners, V. No. 09-683 ANNETTE CARMICHAEL, Individually, and as Guardian for KEITH CARMICHAEL, an incapacitated adult, Petitioners, V. KELLOGG, BROWN & ROOT SERVICES, INC., HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC. and RICHARD

More information

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: ST. JOHNS COUNTY, Petitioner, ROBERT & LINNIE JORDAN, et al., Respondents.

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: ST. JOHNS COUNTY, Petitioner, ROBERT & LINNIE JORDAN, et al., Respondents. SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: ST. JOHNS COUNTY, Petitioner, v. ROBERT & LINNIE JORDAN, et al., Respondents. ON REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIFTH DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA L.T. CASE NOS:

More information

In the Supreme Court of the United States

In the Supreme Court of the United States NO. 15-497 In the Supreme Court of the United States STACY FRY, BRENT FRY, AND EF, A MINOR, BY HER NEXT FRIENDS STACY FRY AND BRENT FRY, Petitioners, v. NAPOLEON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, JACKSON COUNTY INTERMEDIATE

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE September 15, 2005 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE September 15, 2005 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE September 15, 2005 Session EDWARD JOHNSON, ET AL. v. KATIE E. WILSON, ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for McMinn County No. 22839 Lawrence H. Puckett,

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE JULY SESSION, 1997

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE JULY SESSION, 1997 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE FILED JULY SESSION, 1997 September 30, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9610-CR-00368 ) Appellee,

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2014

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2014 GROSS, J. DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2014 TOWN OF JUPITER, FLORIDA, Petitioner, v. BYRD FAMILY TRUST, Respondent. No. 4D13-2566 [January 29, 2014] In

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs November 15, 2010

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs November 15, 2010 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs November 15, 2010 CALVIN WILHITE v. TENNESSEE BOARD OF PAROLE Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County No. 09-586-IV Russell

More information

*** CAPITAL CASE *** No

*** CAPITAL CASE *** No *** CAPITAL CASE *** No. 16-9541 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JEFFREY CLARK, Petitioner, v. STATE OF LOUISIANA, Respondent. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT PETITION FOR

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs September 20, 2010

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs September 20, 2010 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs September 20, 2010 STATE OF TENNESSEE FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, ET AL. v. JESUS CHRIST S CHURCH @ LIBERTY CHURCH

More information

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (Bench Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2004 1 NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE April 13, 2005 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE April 13, 2005 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE April 13, 2005 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE, ET AL. v. WANDA DEAN WALLACE, ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County No. 50200336 Ross Hicks,

More information

FOR PUBLICATION January 18, :05 a.m. HONIGMAN MILLER SCHWARTZ AND COHN LLP, Petitioner-Appellant,

FOR PUBLICATION January 18, :05 a.m. HONIGMAN MILLER SCHWARTZ AND COHN LLP, Petitioner-Appellant, S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S HONIGMAN MILLER SCHWARTZ AND COHN LLP, Petitioner-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION January 18, 2018 9:05 a.m. v No. 336175 Tax Tribunal CITY OF DETROIT,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: Filing Date: June 10, 2011 Docket No. 29,975 DAVID MARTINEZ, v. Worker-Appellant, POJOAQUE GAMING, INC., d/b/a CITIES OF GOLD CASINO,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE March 25, 2014 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE March 25, 2014 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE March 25, 2014 Session ANTONIUS HARRIS ET AL. v. TENNESSEE REHABILITATIVE INITIATIVE IN CORRECTION ET AL. Appeal from the Tennessee Claims Commission No.

More information

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY Herbert C. Gill, Jr., Judge. This appeal involves a dispute between the Board of

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY Herbert C. Gill, Jr., Judge. This appeal involves a dispute between the Board of PRESENT: All the Justices COMCAST OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, INC. OPINION BY v. Record No. 080946 JUSTICE CYNTHIA D. KINSER February 27, 2009 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 16-1144 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States CARLO J. MARINELLO, II Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals

More information

CASE NO. SC DAVID M. SORIA, M.D., INPHYNET CONTRACTING SERVICES, INC. and TEAM HEALTH, INC., JURISDICTIONAL ANSWER BRIEF

CASE NO. SC DAVID M. SORIA, M.D., INPHYNET CONTRACTING SERVICES, INC. and TEAM HEALTH, INC., JURISDICTIONAL ANSWER BRIEF IN THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT _ CASE NO. SC11-2050 DAVID M. SORIA, M.D., vs Petitioner. INPHYNET CONTRACTING SERVICES, INC. and TEAM HEALTH, INC., Respondents. On discretionary conflict review of a decision

More information

Survey of State Civil Shoplifting Statutes

Survey of State Civil Shoplifting Statutes University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln College of Law, Faculty Publications Law, College of 2015 Survey of State Civil Shoplifting Statutes Ryan Sullivan University

More information

Dipoma v. McPhie. Supreme Court of Utah July 20, 2001, Filed No

Dipoma v. McPhie. Supreme Court of Utah July 20, 2001, Filed No Positive As of: October 22, 2013 3:07 PM EDT Dipoma v. McPhie Supreme Court of Utah July 20, 2001, Filed No. 20000466 Reporter: 2001 UT 61; 29 P.3d 1225; 2001 Utah LEXIS 108; 426 Utah Adv. Rep. 17 Mary

More information

July 5, Conflicts for the Lawyer

July 5, Conflicts for the Lawyer Wisconsin Formal Ethics Opinion EF-11-02: Conflicts in Criminal Practice Arising From Concurrent Part-time Employment as an Assistant District Attorney and a Lawyer in a Private Law Firm July 5, 2011 Synopsis:

More information

Focus. FEATURE COMMENT: Frankenstein s Monster Is (Still) Alive: Supreme Court Recognizes Validity Of Implied Certification Theory

Focus. FEATURE COMMENT: Frankenstein s Monster Is (Still) Alive: Supreme Court Recognizes Validity Of Implied Certification Theory Reprinted from The Government Contractor, with permission of Thomson Reuters. Copyright 2016. Further use without the permission of West is prohibited. For further information about this publication, please

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE May 13, 2011 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE May 13, 2011 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE May 13, 2011 Session LINDA EPPS v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF THE METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, AND THE METROPOLITAN ACTION

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 11, 2018

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 11, 2018 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 11, 2018 12/06/2018 CYNTOIA BROWN v. CAROLYN JORDAN Rule 23 Certified Question of Law from the United States Court of Appeals for

More information

Fordham Urban Law Journal

Fordham Urban Law Journal Fordham Urban Law Journal Volume 4 4 Number 3 Article 10 1976 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW- Federal Water Pollution Prevention and Control Act of 1972- Jurisdiction to Review Effluent Limitation Regulations Promulgated

More information