commerce clause in Delaware

1991While this has not been raised as a consideration in determining the constitutionality of the application of the Delaware Lemon Law in this case, it does indicate absence of unequal treatment. 2 Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 , 90 S.Ct. 844 , 25 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970) balanced state regulation versus the commerce clause in a realistic context which applies to the present case.

1991While this has not been raised as a consideration in determining the constitutionality of the application of the Delaware Lemon Law in this case, it does indicate absence of unequal treatment. 2 Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 , 90 S.Ct. 844 , 25 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970) balanced state regulation versus the commerce clause in a realistic context which applies to the present case.

1959In my opinion, however, this is not such a case, the statute here under attack not adapting itself to any of the recently devised state tax schemes for levying taxes from persons doing an interstate business which have met the approval of the Supreme Court (compare Railway Express Agency v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 347 U.S. 359 , 74 S.Ct. 558 , 98 L.Ed. 337 ) which is understandable in view of the fact that the essential provisions of the statute date from 1909.

1959In my opinion, however, this is not such a case, the statute here under attack not adapting itself to any of the recently devised state tax schemes for levying taxes from persons doing an interstate business which have met the approval of the Supreme Court (compare Railway Express Agency v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 347 U.S. 359 , 74 S.Ct. 558 , 98 L.Ed. 337 ) which is understandable in view of the fact that the essential provisions of the statute date from 1909.

1959While defendant concedes that the tax in question is not applicable to plaintiff unless it is a property tax, it must be noted that substantial tax inroads by the states into the intrastate ownership and activities of what had once been considered interstate businesses protected by the Commerce clause have been countenanced where such taxes are designed so as to overcome the objection that they compel a taxpayer to pay for the privilege of engaging in interstate commerce, Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. v. State of Minnesota, supra, and Railway Express Agency v. Commonwealth of Virgini

1959While defendant concedes that the tax in question is not applicable to plaintiff unless it is a property tax, it must be noted that substantial tax inroads by the states into the intrastate ownership and activities of what had once been considered interstate businesses protected by the Commerce clause have been countenanced where such taxes are designed so as to overcome the objection that they compel a taxpayer to pay for the privilege of engaging in interstate commerce, Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. v. State of Minnesota, supra, and Railway Express Agency v. Commonwealth of Virgini

1959In my opinion, however, this is not such a case, the statute here under attack not adapting itself to any of the recently devised state tax schemes for levying taxes from persons doing an interstate business which have met the approval of the Supreme Court (compare Railway Express Agency v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 347 U.S. 359 , 74 S.Ct. 558 , 98 L.Ed. 337 ) which is understandable in view of the fact that the essential provisions of the statute date from 1909.

1959In my opinion, however, this is not such a case, the statute here under attack not adapting itself to any of the recently devised state tax schemes for levying taxes from persons doing an interstate business which have met the approval of the Supreme Court (compare Railway Express Agency v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 347 U.S. 359 , 74 S.Ct. 558 , 98 L.Ed. 337 ) which is understandable in view of the fact that the essential provisions of the statute date from 1909.

1959While defendant concedes that the tax in question is not applicable to plaintiff unless it is a property tax, it must be noted that substantial tax inroads by the states into the intrastate ownership and activities of what had once been considered interstate businesses protected by the Commerce clause have been countenanced where such taxes are designed so as to overcome the objection that they compel a taxpayer to pay for the privilege of engaging in interstate commerce, Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. v. State of Minnesota, supra, and Railway Express Agency v. Commonwealth of Virgini

1959While defendant concedes that the tax in question is not applicable to plaintiff unless it is a property tax, it must be noted that substantial tax inroads by the states into the intrastate ownership and activities of what had once been considered interstate businesses protected by the Commerce clause have been countenanced where such taxes are designed so as to overcome the objection that they compel a taxpayer to pay for the privilege of engaging in interstate commerce, Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. v. State of Minnesota, supra, and Railway Express Agency v. Commonwealth of Virgini

1959While defendant concedes that the tax in question is not applicable to plaintiff unless it is a property tax, it must be noted that substantial tax inroads by the states into the intrastate ownership and activities of what had once been considered interstate businesses protected by the Commerce clause have been countenanced where such taxes are designed so as to overcome the objection that they compel a taxpayer to pay for the privilege of engaging in interstate commerce, Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. v. State of Minnesota, supra, and Railway Express Agency v. Commonwealth of Virgini

1959While defendant concedes that the tax in question is not applicable to plaintiff unless it is a property tax, it must be noted that substantial tax inroads by the states into the intrastate ownership and activities of what had once been considered interstate businesses protected by the Commerce clause have been countenanced where such taxes are designed so as to overcome the objection that they compel a taxpayer to pay for the privilege of engaging in interstate commerce, Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. v. State of Minnesota, supra, and Railway Express Agency v. Commonwealth of Virgini

2018In fact, the Third Circuit has noted that a party’s agreement to be bound by another state’s laws is distinct from cases in which the State has violated the commerce clause. 566 Imz‘mcl‘z`oaa/ 5}/5. a Cowpalw“ Cam'ra/am Co)]j., 35 F.3d 813 , 825-26 (3d Cir. 1994).

2018In fact, the Third Circuit has noted that a party’s agreement to be bound by another state’s laws is distinct from cases in which the State has violated the commerce clause. 566 Imz‘mcl‘z`oaa/ 5}/5. a Cowpalw“ Cam'ra/am Co)]j., 35 F.3d 813 , 825-26 (3d Cir. 1994).

1988Coons v. American Honda Motor Co., 94 N.J. 307 , 463 A.2d 921 (1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1123 , 105 S.Ct. 808 , 83 L.Ed.2d 800 (1985).

1988Coons v. American Honda Motor Co., 94 N.J. 307 , 463 A.2d 921 (1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1123 , 105 S.Ct. 808 , 83 L.Ed.2d 800 (1985).

1988Coons v. American Honda Motor Co., 94 N.J. 307 , 463 A.2d 921 (1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1123 , 105 S.Ct. 808 , 83 L.Ed.2d 800 (1985).

1988Coons v. American Honda Motor Co., 94 N.J. 307 , 463 A.2d 921 (1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1123 , 105 S.Ct. 808 , 83 L.Ed.2d 800 (1985).

1987In Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624 , 102 S.Ct. 2629 , 73 L.Ed.2d 269 (1982), the Supreme Court ruled that under the commerce clause a state “has no interest in regulating the internal affairs of foreign corporations.” Id. at 645-46 , 102 S.Ct. at 2642 .

1987In Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624 , 102 S.Ct. 2629 , 73 L.Ed.2d 269 (1982), the Supreme Court ruled that under the commerce clause a state “has no interest in regulating the internal affairs of foreign corporations.” Id. at 645-46 , 102 S.Ct. at 2642 .

1959Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America v. Panoma Corp., Okl., 271 P. 2d 354 .

1948Co. v. Wells, 265 U. S. 101 , 44 S.Ct. 469 , 68 L.Ed. 928 ; Michigan Central R.

1948Co. v. Wells, 265 U. S. 101 , 44 S.Ct. 469 , 68 L.Ed. 928 ; Michigan Central R.

1948Co. v. Terte, 284 U. S. 284 , 52 S.Ct. 152, 153 , 76 L.Ed. 295 , supra, the Su preme Court “held that the constitutional limitation upon state court jurisdiction originating in the commerce clause should apply whether the action was commenced by summons or attachment,” quoting the following jfrom the opinion: “The prohibition against burdening interstate commerce cannot * * * be evaded merely by attaching the property of the non-resident railroad corporation.

1948Co. v. Terte, 284 U. S. 284 , 52 S.Ct. 152, 153 , 76 L.Ed. 295 , supra, the Su preme Court “held that the constitutional limitation upon state court jurisdiction originating in the commerce clause should apply whether the action was commenced by summons or attachment,” quoting the following jfrom the opinion: “The prohibition against burdening interstate commerce cannot * * * be evaded merely by attaching the property of the non-resident railroad corporation.

1948Next, petitioner argues that “state jurisdictional statutes, like Section 4631 here, whereby states attempted to exercise jurisdiction over foreign corporations actively engaged in interstate commerce upon foreign causes of action” have been held violative of the commerce clause “wherever it could factually be shown, as in the present case, that the exercise of jurisdiction, in fact, would substantially impair the efficiency of the petitioner’s operations in interstate commerce”, citing Davis v. Farmers’ Co-operative Co., 262 U. S. 312 , 43 S.Ct. 556 , 67 L.Ed. 996 ; Atchinson, T. & S. F. Ry.

1948Next, petitioner argues that “state jurisdictional statutes, like Section 4631 here, whereby states attempted to exercise jurisdiction over foreign corporations actively engaged in interstate commerce upon foreign causes of action” have been held violative of the commerce clause “wherever it could factually be shown, as in the present case, that the exercise of jurisdiction, in fact, would substantially impair the efficiency of the petitioner’s operations in interstate commerce”, citing Davis v. Farmers’ Co-operative Co., 262 U. S. 312 , 43 S.Ct. 556 , 67 L.Ed. 996 ; Atchinson, T. & S. F. Ry.