commerce clause in Kentucky

1995A state tax will be sustained against a commerce clause challenge, “... when 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.” Complete Auto Transit, 430 U.S. at 279 , 97 S.Ct. at 1079 .

1995A state tax will be sustained against a commerce clause challenge, “... when 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.” Complete Auto Transit, 430 U.S. at 279 , 97 S.Ct. at 1079 .

1993Douglas, 458 U.S. 941 , 102 S.Ct. 3456 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1982) (absent a showing of necessity for the statute, the commerce clause was violated by a Nebraska statute which absolutely forbid exporting water from Nebraska to states which did not provide reciprocal water rights to Nebraska); Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322 , 99 S.Ct. 1727 , 60 L.Ed.2d 250 (1979) (the commerce clause was violated by an Oklahoma statute which prohibited the exportation of minnows for sale but placed no limitations on the disposal of minnows within the state); Lewis v. BT Investment Managers, Inc., 447 U.S. 27 , 1

1993Douglas, 458 U.S. 941 , 102 S.Ct. 3456 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1982) (absent a showing of necessity for the statute, the commerce clause was violated by a Nebraska statute which absolutely forbid exporting water from Nebraska to states which did not provide reciprocal water rights to Nebraska); Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322 , 99 S.Ct. 1727 , 60 L.Ed.2d 250 (1979) (the commerce clause was violated by an Oklahoma statute which prohibited the exportation of minnows for sale but placed no limitations on the disposal of minnows within the state); Lewis v. BT Investment Managers, Inc., 447 U.S. 27 , 1

2016For instance, the Supreme Court has fashioned a number, of exceptions to the standard analysis, such as, for example, United Haulers, 550-U.S. at .330, 127 S.Ct. 1786 (upholding discriminatory regulation .in favor of “traditional public function” as opposed to, discrimination in favor of private enterprise); Davis, 553 U.S. at 328 , 128 S-Ct. 1801 (applying that same exception to a discriminatory, tax); Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp., 426 U.S. 794, 810 , 96 S.Ct. 2488 ,’ 49 L.Ed.2d 220 (1976) (upholding discriminatory regulation that favored, as opposed to private enterprise, the government’

2016For instance, the Supreme Court has fashioned a number, of exceptions to the standard analysis, such as, for example, United Haulers, 550-U.S. at .330, 127 S.Ct. 1786 (upholding discriminatory regulation .in favor of “traditional public function” as opposed to, discrimination in favor of private enterprise); Davis, 553 U.S. at 328 , 128 S-Ct. 1801 (applying that same exception to a discriminatory, tax); Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp., 426 U.S. 794, 810 , 96 S.Ct. 2488 ,’ 49 L.Ed.2d 220 (1976) (upholding discriminatory regulation that favored, as opposed to private enterprise, the government’

2016For instance, the Supreme Court has fashioned a number, of exceptions to the standard analysis, such as, for example, United Haulers, 550-U.S. at .330, 127 S.Ct. 1786 (upholding discriminatory regulation .in favor of “traditional public function” as opposed to, discrimination in favor of private enterprise); Davis, 553 U.S. at 328 , 128 S-Ct. 1801 (applying that same exception to a discriminatory, tax); Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp., 426 U.S. 794, 810 , 96 S.Ct. 2488 ,’ 49 L.Ed.2d 220 (1976) (upholding discriminatory regulation that favored, as opposed to private enterprise, the government’

2016For instance, the Supreme Court has fashioned a number, of exceptions to the standard analysis, such as, for example, United Haulers, 550-U.S. at .330, 127 S.Ct. 1786 (upholding discriminatory regulation .in favor of “traditional public function” as opposed to, discrimination in favor of private enterprise); Davis, 553 U.S. at 328 , 128 S-Ct. 1801 (applying that same exception to a discriminatory, tax); Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp., 426 U.S. 794, 810 , 96 S.Ct. 2488 ,’ 49 L.Ed.2d 220 (1976) (upholding discriminatory regulation that favored, as opposed to private enterprise, the government’

2016General Motors Corp. v. Tracy, 519 U.S. 278 , 298 n. 12, 117 S.Ct. 811 , 136 L.Ed,2d 761 (1997) (citing Broum-Forman Distillers Corp. v. Nm York State Liquor Auth., 476 U.S. 573, 579 , 106 S.Ct. 2080 , 90 L.Ed.2d 552 (1986), for the observation that “no clear line” separates' the “discriminatory” from the “non-discriminatory” strands of dormant Commerce Clause analysis).

2016General Motors Corp. v. Tracy, 519 U.S. 278 , 298 n. 12, 117 S.Ct. 811 , 136 L.Ed,2d 761 (1997) (citing Broum-Forman Distillers Corp. v. Nm York State Liquor Auth., 476 U.S. 573, 579 , 106 S.Ct. 2080 , 90 L.Ed.2d 552 (1986), for the observation that “no clear line” separates' the “discriminatory” from the “non-discriminatory” strands of dormant Commerce Clause analysis).

2016General Motors Corp. v. Tracy, 519 U.S. 278 , 298 n. 12, 117 S.Ct. 811 , 136 L.Ed,2d 761 (1997) (citing Broum-Forman Distillers Corp. v. Nm York State Liquor Auth., 476 U.S. 573, 579 , 106 S.Ct. 2080 , 90 L.Ed.2d 552 (1986), for the observation that “no clear line” separates' the “discriminatory” from the “non-discriminatory” strands of dormant Commerce Clause analysis).

2016General Motors Corp. v. Tracy, 519 U.S. 278 , 298 n. 12, 117 S.Ct. 811 , 136 L.Ed,2d 761 (1997) (citing Broum-Forman Distillers Corp. v. Nm York State Liquor Auth., 476 U.S. 573, 579 , 106 S.Ct. 2080 , 90 L.Ed.2d 552 (1986), for the observation that “no clear line” separates' the “discriminatory” from the “non-discriminatory” strands of dormant Commerce Clause analysis).

2006In particular, it is clear that the extraterritoriality principle as it appears in Bonaparte is not based on the commerce clause."); Shaper , at 765, 647 N.E.2d 550 (discussing Bonaparte 's holding and noting that it was not based on the Commerce Clause). [36] Shaper , at 763, 647 N.E.2d 550. [37] Limbach, 486 U.S. at 277 , 108 S.Ct. 1803 (internal citations omitted). [38] Id. [39] Shaper , at 764, 647 N.E.2d 550. [40] As noted previously, although the cases are distinguishable, Kentucky Courts have previously struck down legislation for violating the Commerce Clause, such as when the Kentucky

2006In particular, it is clear that the extraterritoriality principle as it appears in Bonaparte is not based on the commerce clause."); Shaper , at 765, 647 N.E.2d 550 (discussing Bonaparte 's holding and noting that it was not based on the Commerce Clause). [36] Shaper , at 763, 647 N.E.2d 550. [37] Limbach, 486 U.S. at 277 , 108 S.Ct. 1803 (internal citations omitted). [38] Id. [39] Shaper , at 764, 647 N.E.2d 550. [40] As noted previously, although the cases are distinguishable, Kentucky Courts have previously struck down legislation for violating the Commerce Clause, such as when the Kentucky

1995Dilworth Co., 322 U.S. 327, 331 , 64 S.Ct. 1023, 1026 , 88 L.Ed. 1304 (1944).

1995Dilworth Co., 322 U.S. 327, 331 , 64 S.Ct. 1023, 1026 , 88 L.Ed. 1304 (1944).

1995“The commerce clause ... is a limitation upon the power of the states.” Freeman v. Hewit, 329 U.S. 249, 253 , 67 S.Ct. 274, 276 , 91 L.Ed. 265 (1946).

1995“The commerce clause ... is a limitation upon the power of the states.” Freeman v. Hewit, 329 U.S. 249, 253 , 67 S.Ct. 274, 276 , 91 L.Ed. 265 (1946).

1993Instead, contrary to the purpose of the commerce clause, retroactive application might operate only to limit the legislature’s future willingness to attempt the “legitimate state taxation of interstate commerce.” American Trucking, 496 U.S. at 181 , 110 S.Ct. at 2332 .

1993Instead, contrary to the purpose of the commerce clause, retroactive application might operate only to limit the legislature’s future willingness to attempt the “legitimate state taxation of interstate commerce.” American Trucking, 496 U.S. at 181 , 110 S.Ct. at 2332 .

1993Seelig, Inc., 294 U.S. 511 , 55 S.Ct. 497 , 79 L.Ed. 1032 (1935) (the commerce clause was violated by New York’s prohibition against the sale of any milk which was purchased from out-of-state producers for less than the minimum price fixed for the purchase of milk produced in New York); Sporhase v. Nebraska ex rel.

1993Seelig, Inc., 294 U.S. 511 , 55 S.Ct. 497 , 79 L.Ed. 1032 (1935) (the commerce clause was violated by New York’s prohibition against the sale of any milk which was purchased from out-of-state producers for less than the minimum price fixed for the purchase of milk produced in New York); Sporhase v. Nebraska ex rel.

1993Douglas, 458 U.S. 941 , 102 S.Ct. 3456 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1982) (absent a showing of necessity for the statute, the commerce clause was violated by a Nebraska statute which absolutely forbid exporting water from Nebraska to states which did not provide reciprocal water rights to Nebraska); Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322 , 99 S.Ct. 1727 , 60 L.Ed.2d 250 (1979) (the commerce clause was violated by an Oklahoma statute which prohibited the exportation of minnows for sale but placed no limitations on the disposal of minnows within the state); Lewis v. BT Investment Managers, Inc., 447 U.S. 27 , 1

1993Douglas, 458 U.S. 941 , 102 S.Ct. 3456 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1982) (absent a showing of necessity for the statute, the commerce clause was violated by a Nebraska statute which absolutely forbid exporting water from Nebraska to states which did not provide reciprocal water rights to Nebraska); Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322 , 99 S.Ct. 1727 , 60 L.Ed.2d 250 (1979) (the commerce clause was violated by an Oklahoma statute which prohibited the exportation of minnows for sale but placed no limitations on the disposal of minnows within the state); Lewis v. BT Investment Managers, Inc., 447 U.S. 27 , 1

1993Douglas, 458 U.S. 941 , 102 S.Ct. 3456 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1982) (absent a showing of necessity for the statute, the commerce clause was violated by a Nebraska statute which absolutely forbid exporting water from Nebraska to states which did not provide reciprocal water rights to Nebraska); Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322 , 99 S.Ct. 1727 , 60 L.Ed.2d 250 (1979) (the commerce clause was violated by an Oklahoma statute which prohibited the exportation of minnows for sale but placed no limitations on the disposal of minnows within the state); Lewis v. BT Investment Managers, Inc., 447 U.S. 27 , 1

1993Douglas, 458 U.S. 941 , 102 S.Ct. 3456 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1982) (absent a showing of necessity for the statute, the commerce clause was violated by a Nebraska statute which absolutely forbid exporting water from Nebraska to states which did not provide reciprocal water rights to Nebraska); Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322 , 99 S.Ct. 1727 , 60 L.Ed.2d 250 (1979) (the commerce clause was violated by an Oklahoma statute which prohibited the exportation of minnows for sale but placed no limitations on the disposal of minnows within the state); Lewis v. BT Investment Managers, Inc., 447 U.S. 27 , 1

1993Douglas, 458 U.S. 941 , 102 S.Ct. 3456 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1982) (absent a showing of necessity for the statute, the commerce clause was violated by a Nebraska statute which absolutely forbid exporting water from Nebraska to states which did not provide reciprocal water rights to Nebraska); Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322 , 99 S.Ct. 1727 , 60 L.Ed.2d 250 (1979) (the commerce clause was violated by an Oklahoma statute which prohibited the exportation of minnows for sale but placed no limitations on the disposal of minnows within the state); Lewis v. BT Investment Managers, Inc., 447 U.S. 27 , 1

1993Douglas, 458 U.S. 941 , 102 S.Ct. 3456 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1982) (absent a showing of necessity for the statute, the commerce clause was violated by a Nebraska statute which absolutely forbid exporting water from Nebraska to states which did not provide reciprocal water rights to Nebraska); Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322 , 99 S.Ct. 1727 , 60 L.Ed.2d 250 (1979) (the commerce clause was violated by an Oklahoma statute which prohibited the exportation of minnows for sale but placed no limitations on the disposal of minnows within the state); Lewis v. BT Investment Managers, Inc., 447 U.S. 27 , 1

1993Douglas, 458 U.S. 941 , 102 S.Ct. 3456 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1982) (absent a showing of necessity for the statute, the commerce clause was violated by a Nebraska statute which absolutely forbid exporting water from Nebraska to states which did not provide reciprocal water rights to Nebraska); Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322 , 99 S.Ct. 1727 , 60 L.Ed.2d 250 (1979) (the commerce clause was violated by an Oklahoma statute which prohibited the exportation of minnows for sale but placed no limitations on the disposal of minnows within the state); Lewis v. BT Investment Managers, Inc., 447 U.S. 27 , 1

1993Douglas, 458 U.S. 941 , 102 S.Ct. 3456 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1982) (absent a showing of necessity for the statute, the commerce clause was violated by a Nebraska statute which absolutely forbid exporting water from Nebraska to states which did not provide reciprocal water rights to Nebraska); Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322 , 99 S.Ct. 1727 , 60 L.Ed.2d 250 (1979) (the commerce clause was violated by an Oklahoma statute which prohibited the exportation of minnows for sale but placed no limitations on the disposal of minnows within the state); Lewis v. BT Investment Managers, Inc., 447 U.S. 27 , 1

1993Douglas, 458 U.S. 941 , 102 S.Ct. 3456 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1982) (absent a showing of necessity for the statute, the commerce clause was violated by a Nebraska statute which absolutely forbid exporting water from Nebraska to states which did not provide reciprocal water rights to Nebraska); Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322 , 99 S.Ct. 1727 , 60 L.Ed.2d 250 (1979) (the commerce clause was violated by an Oklahoma statute which prohibited the exportation of minnows for sale but placed no limitations on the disposal of minnows within the state); Lewis v. BT Investment Managers, Inc., 447 U.S. 27 , 1

1993Douglas, 458 U.S. 941 , 102 S.Ct. 3456 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1982) (absent a showing of necessity for the statute, the commerce clause was violated by a Nebraska statute which absolutely forbid exporting water from Nebraska to states which did not provide reciprocal water rights to Nebraska); Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322 , 99 S.Ct. 1727 , 60 L.Ed.2d 250 (1979) (the commerce clause was violated by an Oklahoma statute which prohibited the exportation of minnows for sale but placed no limitations on the disposal of minnows within the state); Lewis v. BT Investment Managers, Inc., 447 U.S. 27 , 1

1993Douglas, 458 U.S. 941 , 102 S.Ct. 3456 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1982) (absent a showing of necessity for the statute, the commerce clause was violated by a Nebraska statute which absolutely forbid exporting water from Nebraska to states which did not provide reciprocal water rights to Nebraska); Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322 , 99 S.Ct. 1727 , 60 L.Ed.2d 250 (1979) (the commerce clause was violated by an Oklahoma statute which prohibited the exportation of minnows for sale but placed no limitations on the disposal of minnows within the state); Lewis v. BT Investment Managers, Inc., 447 U.S. 27 , 1

1993Douglas, 458 U.S. 941 , 102 S.Ct. 3456 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1982) (absent a showing of necessity for the statute, the commerce clause was violated by a Nebraska statute which absolutely forbid exporting water from Nebraska to states which did not provide reciprocal water rights to Nebraska); Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322 , 99 S.Ct. 1727 , 60 L.Ed.2d 250 (1979) (the commerce clause was violated by an Oklahoma statute which prohibited the exportation of minnows for sale but placed no limitations on the disposal of minnows within the state); Lewis v. BT Investment Managers, Inc., 447 U.S. 27 , 1

1993Douglas, 458 U.S. 941 , 102 S.Ct. 3456 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1982) (absent a showing of necessity for the statute, the commerce clause was violated by a Nebraska statute which absolutely forbid exporting water from Nebraska to states which did not provide reciprocal water rights to Nebraska); Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322 , 99 S.Ct. 1727 , 60 L.Ed.2d 250 (1979) (the commerce clause was violated by an Oklahoma statute which prohibited the exportation of minnows for sale but placed no limitations on the disposal of minnows within the state); Lewis v. BT Investment Managers, Inc., 447 U.S. 27 , 1

1993Douglas, 458 U.S. 941 , 102 S.Ct. 3456 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1982) (absent a showing of necessity for the statute, the commerce clause was violated by a Nebraska statute which absolutely forbid exporting water from Nebraska to states which did not provide reciprocal water rights to Nebraska); Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322 , 99 S.Ct. 1727 , 60 L.Ed.2d 250 (1979) (the commerce clause was violated by an Oklahoma statute which prohibited the exportation of minnows for sale but placed no limitations on the disposal of minnows within the state); Lewis v. BT Investment Managers, Inc., 447 U.S. 27 , 1

1993Douglas, 458 U.S. 941 , 102 S.Ct. 3456 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1982) (absent a showing of necessity for the statute, the commerce clause was violated by a Nebraska statute which absolutely forbid exporting water from Nebraska to states which did not provide reciprocal water rights to Nebraska); Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322 , 99 S.Ct. 1727 , 60 L.Ed.2d 250 (1979) (the commerce clause was violated by an Oklahoma statute which prohibited the exportation of minnows for sale but placed no limitations on the disposal of minnows within the state); Lewis v. BT Investment Managers, Inc., 447 U.S. 27 , 1

1993Douglas, 458 U.S. 941 , 102 S.Ct. 3456 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1982) (absent a showing of necessity for the statute, the commerce clause was violated by a Nebraska statute which absolutely forbid exporting water from Nebraska to states which did not provide reciprocal water rights to Nebraska); Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322 , 99 S.Ct. 1727 , 60 L.Ed.2d 250 (1979) (the commerce clause was violated by an Oklahoma statute which prohibited the exportation of minnows for sale but placed no limitations on the disposal of minnows within the state); Lewis v. BT Investment Managers, Inc., 447 U.S. 27 , 1

1993Douglas, 458 U.S. 941 , 102 S.Ct. 3456 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1982) (absent a showing of necessity for the statute, the commerce clause was violated by a Nebraska statute which absolutely forbid exporting water from Nebraska to states which did not provide reciprocal water rights to Nebraska); Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322 , 99 S.Ct. 1727 , 60 L.Ed.2d 250 (1979) (the commerce clause was violated by an Oklahoma statute which prohibited the exportation of minnows for sale but placed no limitations on the disposal of minnows within the state); Lewis v. BT Investment Managers, Inc., 447 U.S. 27 , 1

1993Douglas, 458 U.S. 941 , 102 S.Ct. 3456 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1982) (absent a showing of necessity for the statute, the commerce clause was violated by a Nebraska statute which absolutely forbid exporting water from Nebraska to states which did not provide reciprocal water rights to Nebraska); Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322 , 99 S.Ct. 1727 , 60 L.Ed.2d 250 (1979) (the commerce clause was violated by an Oklahoma statute which prohibited the exportation of minnows for sale but placed no limitations on the disposal of minnows within the state); Lewis v. BT Investment Managers, Inc., 447 U.S. 27 , 1

1986That phrase is: “It is not the purpose of the commerce clause to relieve those engaged in interstate commerce from their just share of state tax burden even though it increases the cost of doing business.” Western Live Stock v. Bureau of Revenue, 303 U.S. 250, 254 , 58 S.Ct. 546, 548 , 82 L.Ed. 823 (1938).

1986That phrase is: “It is not the purpose of the commerce clause to relieve those engaged in interstate commerce from their just share of state tax burden even though it increases the cost of doing business.” Western Live Stock v. Bureau of Revenue, 303 U.S. 250, 254 , 58 S.Ct. 546, 548 , 82 L.Ed. 823 (1938).

1972On March 26, 1970, in the consolidated cases of Wonderland Ventures, Inc. v. City of Sandusky, etc., 423 F.2d 548 (6th Cir.) *285 (1970), the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the ordinance there in issue (similar to that contained in the present franchise) imposed a gross-receipts tax on CATV systems and was unconstitutional as a burden on interstate commerce in violation of the commerce clause of the United States Constitution.

1962Such was recognized in Allphin v. Ohio River Company, Ky., 306 S.W.2d 94 , wherein we held an attempt to tax that right or privilege would impose an unauthorized burden on interstate commerce.