Taxpayers in the state of Kentucky alleged that a tax on out-of-state municipal bonds that excluded interest from in-state bonds was a violation of the commerce clause. Representatives of the state argued that the tax reflected a traditional government function that could persist without any differential treatment of local interests against the similar interests of out-of-state entities. Additionally, because Kentucky itself participates in the bond market, its potential discrimination should be found allow- able. How would you have ruled in this case? Why?
Answer to relevant QuestionsThe city of Concord, New Hampshire, enacted an ordinance prohibiting all electronic messaging centers (EMCs), which are signs that display electronically changeable messages--illuminated text that can be changed frequently ...Sistrunk was involved in committing an armed robbery at a residence being used as a "stash house." This residence, however, was actually a police setup, organized by an anonymous informant as well as an undercover agent, ...Jaymie Quigley was a tenant of David Winter, renting a home with her husband and four children. In 2002, she contacted Winter about the possibility of moving to a larger home. While she was looking at Winter's other houses, ...Kerns, a home owner, sued defendant contractor Sealy for negligence, breach of contract, wantonness, and res ipsa loquitur in connection with a fire that occur red during the contractor's application of foam-installation in ...Plaintiff homeowners purchased a parcel of land in the homeowners association's (HOA's) subdivision. Their real estate agent requested that the attached- garage requirement be waived, and when the owners did not receive a ...
Post your question