Here is the opinion in HCI Distribution Inc. v. New York State Police Troop B Commander (N.Y. A.D.), reversing the lower court:
Lower court materials here.
Here is the opinion in HCI Distribution Inc. v. New York State Police Troop B Commander (N.Y. A.D.), reversing the lower court:
Lower court materials here.
Here are the materials in City of New York v. Wolfpack Tobacco (S.D. N.Y.):
From the court’s order:
Defendants WOLFPACK TOBACCO, CLOUD AND COMPANY, ALLEGANY SALES AND MARKETING, and PHILIP JIMERSON are enjoined from: i) Advertising or selling cigarettes to New York State residents at prices that do not include the cost of New York State taxes, and for sales to City residents, do not also include the cost of New York City taxes;ii) Selling or shipping any cigarettes without monthly reporting of the sales and/or shipments (including names, dates, addresses, quantities, prices and brands for each sale or shipment, organized by City, town or zip code) to: (a) the New York City Office of the Corporation Counsel, the New York City Department of Finance, and the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance for sales or shipments into New York State and (b) the respective state tobacco tax administrators for sales or shipments into other states; (iii) Selling or shipping any cigarettes unless the packages identify the contents as cigarettes and the packages are delivered pursuant to an age verification procedure that conforms with the procedure specified in the PACT Act; and iv) Selling or shipping more than ten pounds of cigarettes and/or smokeless tobacco in a single sale or delivery.
Here are the new materials in Mashantucket Pequot Tribe v. Town of Ledyard (2d Cir.):
Amicus Brief in Support of En Banc Petition — Seminole, Umatilla, and Coquille
Panel decision and briefs are here.
Here is the petition in Grand River Enterprises Six Nations Ltd. v. Oklahoma ex rel. Pruitt:
And the questions presented:
1. Whether this Court’s precedents establish that the State of Oklahoma (along with 45 other States and various U.S. territories with similar statutes) can impose escrow obligations on certain cigarette manufacturers based partly on sales by Indian tribes to tribal members in Indian country.
2. Whether the Oklahoma Escrow Statute, as interpreted by the state courts in this case, violates federal law by imposing escrow obligations on certain cigarette manufacturers — including Indian-owned businesses operating on reservation lands mbased partly on sales by Indian tribes to tribal members in Indian country.
Update:
Here are additional materials relating to a motion for clarification by the county:
Panel decision materials here.
Here is the indictment in United States v. Sheffler (W.D. Mo.):
News coverage here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.