Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 2004–2022 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Jefferson Lines, Inc.red2 sentences2022Jefferson Lines, 514 U.S. at 184-85. 2022Jefferson Lines, 514 U.S. at 184-85. | 3 | 3 |
Goldberg v. Sweetgreen2 sentences2006The second prong of the Complete Auto test requires an answer to whether the tax is fairly apportioned. “[T]he central purpose behind the apportionment requirement is to ensure that each State taxes only its fair share of an interstate transaction.” Goldberg v. Sweet, 488 U.S. 252 ; 260-61, 102 L. 2006The second prong of the Complete Auto test requires an answer to whether the tax is fairly apportioned. “[T]he central purpose behind the apportionment requirement is to ensure that each State taxes only its fair share of an interstate transaction.” Goldberg v. Sweet, 488 U.S. 252 ; 260-61, 102 L. | 2 | 2 |
Finch v. Maryland Casualty Co.green1 sentence2006Under the Complete Auto test, a state tax will be sustained as constitutional under the Commerce Clause so long as the “tax is applied to an activity with a substantial nexus with the taxing State, is fairly apportioned, does not discriminate against interstate commerce, and is fairly related to the services provided by the *225 State.” Id., 430 U.S. at 279 , 51 L. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.
green
2 sentences2022Substantial Nexus ¶ 28 Despite petitioner’s contention otherwise, the Wayfair Court addressed the first requirement of Complete Auto’s four-part test—substantial nexus—in its entirety by holding that, “[i]n the absence of Quill and Bellas Hess, the first prong of the Complete Auto test simply asks whether the tax applies to an activity with a substantial nexus with the taxing State.” Id. at 2099 . 2022Instead, we can confidently look to the application by the Supreme Court of the United States of the Complete Auto test to a materially identical tax regime in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., 138 S. Ct. 2080 (2018) to guide our analysis. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Robert L. McNeil, Jr. Trust ex rel. McNeil v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2015Id. at 192-97 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady
green
2 sentences2006Under the Complete Auto test, a state tax will be sustained as constitutional under the Commerce Clause so long as the “tax is applied to an activity with a substantial nexus with the taxing State, is fairly apportioned, does not discriminate against interstate commerce, and is fairly related to the services provided by the *225 State.” Id., 430 U.S. at 279 , 51 L. 2006Under the Complete Auto test, a state tax will be sustained as constitutional under the Commerce Clause so long as the “tax is applied to an activity with a substantial nexus with the taxing State, is fairly apportioned, does not discriminate against interstate commerce, and is fairly related to the services provided by the *225 State.” Id., 430 U.S. at 279 , 51 L. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue
green
2 sentences2004The taxpayers contend that the presence of their intangible property in North Carolina is irrelevant in light of the lack of physical presence of offices, facilities, employees, and real or tangible property, and that the Supreme Court’s rulings in National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 386 U.S. 753 , 18 L. 2004The taxpayers contend that the presence of their intangible property in North Carolina is irrelevant in light of the lack of physical presence of offices, facilities, employees, and real or tangible property, and that the Supreme Court’s rulings in National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 386 U.S. 753 , 18 L. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.