Here are the materials in Albrecht v. County of Riverside (Cal. Ct. App.):
Coachella Water District Brief
Related decision (and why we said “again”) here.
Here are the materials in Albrecht v. County of Riverside (Cal. Ct. App.):
Coachella Water District Brief
Related decision (and why we said “again”) here.
Here:
Questions presented:
1. Whether Connecticut impermissibly regulates or controls conduct beyond the boundaries of the State in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause when, as a condition of allowing a manufacturer’s products to be sold in the state, Connecticut forces the manufacturer to obtain and provide private sales and shipping information possessed by non-Connecticut distributors doing no business in Connecticut and having no nexus with Connecticut.
2. Whether Connecticut violates Due Process protections when it bans a manufacturer’s products from being sold in the state, if the manufacturer fails to obtain and provide to Connecticut private sales and shipping information possessed by non-Connecticut distributors relating to their distribution of products in jurisdictions other than Connecticut.
3. Whether Connecticut violates the Supremacy Clause when, as a condition of allowing a manufacturer’s products to be sold in the state, Connecticut forces the manufacturer to obtain and provide private sales and shipping information possessed by non-Connecticut distributors who conduct no business in Connecticut nor distribute the manufacturer’s products to, or in, Connecticut.
Lower court materials here.
Update:
Here:
Question presented:
The question presented is: Whether the clear language of Title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and the exclusive authority over federally recognized Indian Tribes granted to the Secretary of Interior under 25 U.S.C. § 2, controls the determination of how the Miccosukee Tribe compensates its members for the use of their lands, to the exclusion of any other federal agency, including the Internal Revenue Service.
Lower court materials here.
Here is the unpublished opinion in Albrecht v. County of Riverside:
Briefs:
Here is the opinion in In the Matter of White v. State of New York Tax Appeals Tribunal (N.Y. A.D.):
Here are the updated materials in Keweenaw Bay Indian Community v. Khouri (W.D. Mich.):
421 DCT Order re State Prosecutions
422 DCT Order re Protective Order
Prior post here.
William A. Starna has published “The 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua and The Taxation of Native Americans” in Tax Notes Federal:
Here is the opinion in Big Sandy Rancheria Enterprises v. Bonta.
Briefs:
Lower court materials here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.