5 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 1992–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana 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 |
|---|---|---|
Indiana-Kentucky Electric Corp. v. Indiana Department of State Revenuegreen2 sentences2004Corp. v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 598 N.E.2d 647, 656 (Ind. Tax Ct.1992) (IKEC) (citations omitted). 2004See IKEC, 598 N.E.2d at 656-58 . | 2 | 2 |
Simon Aviation, Inc. v. Indiana Department of State Revenuegreen2 sentences2015(Pet’r Br. at 21 n. 9.) 6 “The second prong of the Complete Auto test—the necessity of apportionment—is intended to prevent multiple taxation of interstate commerce.” Simon Aviation, 805 N.E.2d at 927-28 (citation omitted). 2015In turn, a state tax violates the third prong of the Complete Auto test “if it provides a direct commercial advantage to local business.” See id. at 929 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Quill Corp. v. North Dakota Ex Rel. Heitkamp
red
2 sentences2015Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298, 309-19 , 112 S.Ct. 1904 , 119 L.Ed.2d 91 (1992). 2015Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298, 309-19 , 112 S.Ct. 1904 , 119 L.Ed.2d 91 (1992). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Bulkmatic Transp. Co. v. Department of State Revenue
green
1 sentence2001Cf. Bulkmatic III, 715 N.E.2d at 31 . (holding that where effect of PTO exemption penalized those motor carriers outside of Indiana while promoting business in Indiana, exemption violated the Commerce Clause). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Goldberg v. Sweet
green
2 sentences1994Mid-America, however, has not shown or attempted to show that imposi *387 tion of the tax on the printed materials violates the Commerce Clause under the Complete Auto test, which states that "a state tax will withstand scrutiny under the Commerce Clause if '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 State." Goldberg, 488 U.S. at 257 , 109 S.Ct. at 587 , 102 L.Ed.2d at 614 (quoting Complete Auto, 430 U.S. at 279 , 97 S.Ct. at 107 1994Mid-America, however, has not shown or attempted to show that imposi *387 tion of the tax on the printed materials violates the Commerce Clause under the Complete Auto test, which states that "a state tax will withstand scrutiny under the Commerce Clause if '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 State." Goldberg, 488 U.S. at 257 , 109 S.Ct. at 587 , 102 L.Ed.2d at 614 (quoting Complete Auto, 430 U.S. at 279 , 97 S.Ct. at 107 | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady
green
2 sentences1994Mid-America, however, has not shown or attempted to show that imposi *387 tion of the tax on the printed materials violates the Commerce Clause under the Complete Auto test, which states that "a state tax will withstand scrutiny under the Commerce Clause if '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 State." Goldberg, 488 U.S. at 257 , 109 S.Ct. at 587 , 102 L.Ed.2d at 614 (quoting Complete Auto, 430 U.S. at 279 , 97 S.Ct. at 107 1994Mid-America, however, has not shown or attempted to show that imposi *387 tion of the tax on the printed materials violates the Commerce Clause under the Complete Auto test, which states that "a state tax will withstand scrutiny under the Commerce Clause if '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 State." Goldberg, 488 U.S. at 257 , 109 S.Ct. at 587 , 102 L.Ed.2d at 614 (quoting Complete Auto, 430 U.S. at 279 , 97 S.Ct. at 107 | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue
green
1 sentence1992The vitality of the Complete Auto analysis was reaffirmed by this court in Hoosier Energy, 528 N.E.2d at 872 , the supreme court in Hoosier Emergy, 572 N.E.2d at 484 , and the United States Supreme Court in Quill, at -, 112 S.Ct. at 1911-12. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue
green
1 sentence1992The vitality of the Complete Auto analysis was reaffirmed by this court in Hoosier Energy, 528 N.E.2d at 872 , the supreme court in Hoosier Emergy, 572 N.E.2d at 484 , and the United States Supreme Court in Quill, at -, 112 S.Ct. at 1911-12. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.