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 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2003–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas 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 sentences2003Goldberg, 488 U.S. at 265 ; see also Oklahoma Tax Comm=n, 514 U.S. at 186-96 (applying external consistency test to tax which did not facially discriminate against interstate commerce); American Trucking Ass=ns v. Scheiner, 483 U.S. 266 , 8 General Motors Corp. v. Washington, 377 U.S. 436, 449 (1964) (Athe taxpayers must show that the formula places a burden upon interstate commerce in a constitutional sense@). 9 See Tyler Pipe Indus., Inc. v. Washington State Dep=t of Revenue, 483 U.S. 232, 248 (1987) (overruling portion of General Motors Corp. requiring taxpayer to prove that specific inters 2003Goldberg , 488 U.S. at 265 ; s ee also Oklahoma Tax Comm'n , 514 U.S. at 186-96 (applying external consistency test to tax which did not facially discriminate against interstate commerce); American Trucking Ass'ns v. Scheiner , 483 U.S. 266, 282 (1987) (" The way in which a tax levied on participants in interstate commerce is measured and assessed bears directly on whether it implicates central Commerce Clause values ."); Complete Auto , 430 U.S. at 281 (noting that Court "has moved toward a standard of permissibility of state taxation based upon its actual effect rather than its legal termino | 3 | 3 |
American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Scheinergreen2 sentences2003Goldberg, 488 U.S. at 265 ; see also Oklahoma Tax Comm=n, 514 U.S. at 186-96 (applying external consistency test to tax which did not facially discriminate against interstate commerce); American Trucking Ass=ns v. Scheiner, 483 U.S. 266 , 8 General Motors Corp. v. Washington, 377 U.S. 436, 449 (1964) (Athe taxpayers must show that the formula places a burden upon interstate commerce in a constitutional sense@). 9 See Tyler Pipe Indus., Inc. v. Washington State Dep=t of Revenue, 483 U.S. 232, 248 (1987) (overruling portion of General Motors Corp. requiring taxpayer to prove that specific inters 2003Goldberg , 488 U.S. at 265 ; s ee also Oklahoma Tax Comm'n , 514 U.S. at 186-96 (applying external consistency test to tax which did not facially discriminate against interstate commerce); American Trucking Ass'ns v. Scheiner , 483 U.S. 266, 282 (1987) (" The way in which a tax levied on participants in interstate commerce is measured and assessed bears directly on whether it implicates central Commerce Clause values ."); Complete Auto , 430 U.S. at 281 (noting that Court "has moved toward a standard of permissibility of state taxation based upon its actual effect rather than its legal termino | 2 | 3 |
Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Bradygreen2 sentences2003Goldberg, 488 U.S. at 265 , 109 S.Ct. 582 ; see also Oklahoma Tax Comm’n, 514 U.S. at 186-96 , 115 S.Ct. 1331 (applying external consistency test to tax which did not facially *149 discriminate against interstate commerce); American Trucking Ass’ns v. Schemer, 488 U.S. 266 , 282, 107 S.Ct. 2829 , 97 L.Ed.2d 226 (1987) (“The way in which a tax levied on participants in interstate commerce is measured and assessed bears directly on whether it implicates central Commerce Clause values.”); Complete Auto, 430 U.S. at 281 , 97 S.Ct. 1076 (noting that Court “has moved toward a standard of permissibil 2003Goldberg , 488 U.S. at 265 ; s ee also Oklahoma Tax Comm'n , 514 U.S. at 186-96 (applying external consistency test to tax which did not facially discriminate against interstate commerce); American Trucking Ass'ns v. Scheiner , 483 U.S. 266, 282 (1987) (" The way in which a tax levied on participants in interstate commerce is measured and assessed bears directly on whether it implicates central Commerce Clause values ."); Complete Auto , 430 U.S. at 281 (noting that Court "has moved toward a standard of permissibility of state taxation based upon its actual effect rather than its legal termino | 1 | 2 |
General Motors Corp. v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2003Goldberg, 488 U.S. at 265 ; see also Oklahoma Tax Comm=n, 514 U.S. at 186-96 (applying external consistency test to tax which did not facially discriminate against interstate commerce); American Trucking Ass=ns v. Scheiner, 483 U.S. 266 , 8 General Motors Corp. v. Washington, 377 U.S. 436, 449 (1964) (Athe taxpayers must show that the formula places a burden upon interstate commerce in a constitutional sense@). 9 See Tyler Pipe Indus., Inc. v. Washington State Dep=t of Revenue, 483 U.S. 232, 248 (1987) (overruling portion of General Motors Corp. requiring taxpayer to prove that specific inters | 1 | 1 |
Armco Inc. v. Hardestygreen1 sentence2003Goldberg, 488 U.S. at 265 ; see also Oklahoma Tax Comm=n, 514 U.S. at 186-96 (applying external consistency test to tax which did not facially discriminate against interstate commerce); American Trucking Ass=ns v. Scheiner, 483 U.S. 266 , 8 General Motors Corp. v. Washington, 377 U.S. 436, 449 (1964) (Athe taxpayers must show that the formula places a burden upon interstate commerce in a constitutional sense@). 9 See Tyler Pipe Indus., Inc. v. Washington State Dep=t of Revenue, 483 U.S. 232, 248 (1987) (overruling portion of General Motors Corp. requiring taxpayer to prove that specific inters | 1 | 1 |
Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc. v. Washington State Department of Revenuegreen1 sentence2003Goldberg, 488 U.S. at 265 ; see also Oklahoma Tax Comm=n, 514 U.S. at 186-96 (applying external consistency test to tax which did not facially discriminate against interstate commerce); American Trucking Ass=ns v. Scheiner, 483 U.S. 266 , 8 General Motors Corp. v. Washington, 377 U.S. 436, 449 (1964) (Athe taxpayers must show that the formula places a burden upon interstate commerce in a constitutional sense@). 9 See Tyler Pipe Indus., Inc. v. Washington State Dep=t of Revenue, 483 U.S. 232, 248 (1987) (overruling portion of General Motors Corp. requiring taxpayer to prove that specific inters | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Goldberg v. Sweet
green
2 sentences2015“The external consistency test asks whether the State has taxed only that-portion of the revenues from the interstate activity which reasonably reflects the in-state component of the activity being taxed.” Id. at 262 , 109 S.Ct. at 589 . ‘We thus examine the in-state business activity which, triggers the taxable event and the practical or economic effect of the tax on that interstate activity.” Id. 2015“The external consistency test asks whether the State has taxed only that-portion of the revenues from the interstate activity which reasonably reflects the in-state component of the activity being taxed.” Id. at 262 , 109 S.Ct. at 589 . ‘We thus examine the in-state business activity which, triggers the taxable event and the practical or economic effect of the tax on that interstate activity.” Id. | 5 | 2003–2015 |
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.