Citation network
Fulton Corp. Vs. Faulkner
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Oct 31, 1995
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 325 (1995) October Term, 1995 Syllabus Fulton Corp. V. FaulknerSearch
-
Appeals, the North Carolina Supreme Court found that the State's scheme imposed a valid compensatory tax under Darnell v. IndianaSearch
-
Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. DepartmentSearch
-
tax must serve some purpose for which the State may otherwise impose a burden on interstate commerce. See Maryland v. LouisianaSearch
-
the compensating tax is to enable in-state and outof-state businesses to compete on a footing of equality. Henneford v. SilasSearch
-
basis standard generally employed under the Equal Protection Clause. In that respect, Darnell, along with Kidd v. AlabamaSearch
-
the tax years at issue in this litigation. This case accordingly remains a justiciable controversy. See, e. g., Powell v. McCormackSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
s Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the taxable percentage deduction violated the Commerce Clause. Fulton Corp. v. JustusSearch
-
at 499-501, 430 S. E. 2d, at 498-499. Finally, the Court of Appeals distinguished this Court's decision in Darnell v. IndianaSearch
-
S. E. 2d, at 501-502. Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court of North Carolina, which reversed. Fulton Corp. v. JustusSearch
-
state regulatory powers, as well as an affirmative grant of congressional authority. See, e. g., Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. JeffersonSearch
-
designed to benefit instate economic interests by burdening out-of-state competitors.''' Associated Industries of Mo. v. LohmanSearch
-
U. S. 641 ,647 (1994) (quoting New Energy Co. of Ind. v. LimbachSearch
-
of Environmental Quality of Ore., 511 U. S. 93 , 99 (1994) (quoting Hughes v. OklahomaSearch
-
With respect to state taxation, one element of the protocol summarized in Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. BradySearch
-
U. S. 334, 342 (1992) (quoting Armco Inc. v. HardestySearch
-
see also Boston Stock Exchange v. StateSearch
-
see also Philadelphia v. NewSearch
-
by imposing a similar burden on interstate commerce. We have also described taxes 332 Thus, in Henneford v. SilasSearch
-
Id., at 584 (quoting Gregg Dyeing Co. v. QuerySearch
-
Oregon Waste, supra, at 103 (quoting Maryland v. LouisianaSearch
-
of taxes on intrastate commerce. See, e. g., Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. VirginiaSearch
-
Ibid. (quoting Armco Inc. v. HardestySearch
-
defense to a charge of discriminatory taxation under the Commerce Clause. See, e. g., Associated Industries of Mo. v. LohmanSearch
-
Maryland v. LouisianaSearch
-
that our dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence has long sought to prevent. Hughes v. OklahomaSearch
-
see also Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. ReilySearch
-
tax must serve some purpose for which the State may otherwise impose a burden on interstate commerce. In Maryland v. LouisianaSearch
-
Carolina. But because North Carolina has no general sovereign interest in taxing income earned out of state, Maryland v. LouisianaSearch
-
the severance of natural resources from the soil and the use of resources imported from other States, Maryland v. LouisianaSearch
-
U. S., at 759, and the manufacturing and wholesaling of tangible goods, Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc. v. WashingtonSearch
-
are complementary. Our analysis has sometimes focused upon other factors, however, see, e. g., Armco Inc. v. HardestySearch
-
market, the timeframe over which the tax is imposed and evaluated, and so on. See, e. g., Commonwealth Edison Co. v. MontanaSearch
-
We declined to shoulder any such analysis in Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. MinnesotaSearch
-
to Unconstitutional State Tax Discrimination, 39 Tax Law- 8The only exception of which we are aware is Hinson v. LoUSearch
-
out-of-staters. Indeed, we cited Hinson in support of a similar proposition in Silas Mason. See Henneford v. SilasSearch
-
Dean Milk Co. v. MadisonSearch
-
to show that the requirements of the compensatory tax doctrine are clearly met. Cf. Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. HuntSearch
-
facial discrimination invokes the strictest scrutiny of any purported legitimate local purpose''') (quoting Hughes v. OklahomaSearch
-
as facially discriminatory under our modern tests. The Secretary argues, however, that our decision in Darnell v. IndianaSearch
-
was decided in Kidd v. AlabamaSearch
-
test, see, e. g., FCC v. BeachSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial