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 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2011–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by South 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 |
|---|---|---|
Colon Health Centers of America, LLC v. Hazelgreen2 sentences2018In order to prove discriminatory effect, the party asserting a Dormant Commerce Clause violation must show that the state law, "if enforced, would negatively impact interstate commerce to a greater degree than intrastate commerce." Hazel II , 813 F.3d at 153 (quoting Hazel I , 733 F.3d at 543 ). 2018In order to prove discriminatory effect, the party asserting a Dormant Commerce Clause violation must show that the state law, "if enforced, would negatively impact interstate commerce to a greater degree than intrastate commerce." Hazel II , 813 F.3d at 153 (quoting Hazel I , 733 F.3d at 543 ). | 2 | 2 |
South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.green2 sentences2026Ed. 2d 91, 110 (1992) (holding the dormant commerce clause requires a business have a physical presence in a state to be subject to the state's sales tax laws), overruled by S. Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., 585 U.S. 162, 188 , 138 S. Ct. 2080, 2099 , 201 L. 2026Ed. 2d 91, 110 (1992) (holding the dormant commerce clause requires a business have a physical presence in a state to be subject to the state's sales tax laws), overruled by S. Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., 585 U.S. 162, 188 , 138 S. Ct. 2080, 2099 , 201 L. | 1 | 1 |
National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenuegreen1 sentence2024See Nat'l Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue of the State of Ill., 386 U.S. 753 (1967) (suggesting a business was required to have a physical presence in the taxing state to form the requisite nexus to the state); Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992) (requiring, pursuant to the dormant commerce clause, a physical presence for a 1 S.C. | 1 | 1 |
Colon Health Centers of America, LLC v. Hazelgreen2 sentences2018In order to prove discriminatory effect, the party asserting a Dormant Commerce Clause violation must show that the state law, "if enforced, would negatively impact interstate commerce to a greater degree than intrastate commerce." Hazel II , 813 F.3d at 153 (quoting Hazel I , 733 F.3d at 543 ). 2018In order to prove discriminatory effect, the party asserting a Dormant Commerce Clause violation must show that the state law, "if enforced, would negatively impact interstate commerce to a greater degree than intrastate commerce." Hazel II , 813 F.3d at 153 (quoting Hazel I , 733 F.3d at 543 ). | 1 | 1 |
Lenscrafters, Inc. v. Robinsongreen2 sentences2018See id. at 157 (holding that those asserting a Dormant Commerce Clause violation " 'bear[ ] the burden of proving that the burdens placed on interstate commerce outweigh' [a law's] local benefits." (quoting LensCrafters, Inc. v. Robinson , 403 F.3d 798 , 805 (6th Cir. 2005) ) ). 2018See id. at 157 (holding that those asserting a Dormant Commerce Clause violation " 'bear[ ] the burden of proving that the burdens placed on interstate commerce outweigh' [a law's] local benefits." (quoting LensCrafters, Inc. v. Robinson , 403 F.3d 798 , 805 (6th Cir. 2005) ) ). | 1 | 1 |
Travelscape, LLC v. South Carolina Department of Revenuegreen2 sentences2017See Colon Health Ctrs. of Am., LLC v. Hazel, 733 F.3d 535, 546 (4th Cir. 2013) (stating the two tests for determining a violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause are both "fact-bound"); Travelscape, 391 S.C. at 109 , 705 S.E.2d at 38 (referring to an "as-applied" constitutional challenge to a statute or regulation as an "inherently factual issue"); id. at 109 , 705 S.E.2d at 39 (stating the ALC is "better suited for making the factual determinations necessary for an as applied challenge, and finding a statute or regulation unconstitutional as applied to a specific party does not affect the faci 2017See Colon Health Ctrs. of Am., LLC v. Hazel, 733 F.3d 535, 546 (4th Cir. 2013) (stating the two tests for determining a violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause are both "fact-bound"); Travelscape, 391 S.C. at 109 , 705 S.E.2d at 38 (referring to an "as-applied" constitutional challenge to a statute or regulation as an "inherently factual issue"); id. at 109 , 705 S.E.2d at 39 (stating the ALC is "better suited for making the factual determinations necessary for an as applied challenge, and finding a statute or regulation unconstitutional as applied to a specific party does not affect the faci | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Quill Corp. v. North Dakota Ex Rel. Heitkamp
red
2 sentences2024See Nat'l Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue of the State of Ill., 386 U.S. 753 (1967) (suggesting a business was required to have a physical presence in the taxing state to form the requisite nexus to the state); Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992) (requiring, pursuant to the dormant commerce clause, a physical presence for a 1 S.C. 2011A state tax withstands a Dormant Commerce Clause challenge so long as the tax (1) "`is applied to an activity with a substantial nexus with the taxing State, (2) is fairly apportioned, (3) does not discriminate against interstate commerce, and (4) is fairly related to the services provided by the State.'" Quill, 504 U.S. at 311 , 112 S.Ct. at 1912 (quoting Complete Auto, 430 U.S. at 279 , 97 S.Ct. at 1079 ). | 2 | 2011–2024 |
Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady
green
2 sentences2011A state tax withstands a Dormant Commerce Clause challenge so long as the tax (1) "`is applied to an activity with a substantial nexus with the taxing State, (2) is fairly apportioned, (3) does not discriminate against interstate commerce, and (4) is fairly related to the services provided by the State.'" Quill, 504 U.S. at 311 , 112 S.Ct. at 1912 (quoting Complete Auto, 430 U.S. at 279 , 97 S.Ct. at 1079 ). 2011A state tax withstands a Dormant Commerce Clause challenge so long as the tax (1) "`is applied to an activity with a substantial nexus with the taxing State, (2) is fairly apportioned, (3) does not discriminate against interstate commerce, and (4) is fairly related to the services provided by the State.'" Quill, 504 U.S. at 311 , 112 S.Ct. at 1912 (quoting Complete Auto, 430 U.S. at 279 , 97 S.Ct. at 1079 ). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.