IN RE STARGELL; IN RE ZURKOWSKY; IN RE NELSON; IN RE NOLL; AND IN RE BAKER, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of Am., 481 U.S. 69 (U.S. 1987)
  …de the scope of judicial review under the commerce clause.” Ibid. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the District Court. Both Indiana and CTS filed jurisdictional statements. We noted probable jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(2), 479 U. S. 810 (1986), and now reverse.5 rH The first question in these cases is whether the Williams Act pre-empts the Indiana Act. As we have stated frequently, absent an explicit indication by Congress of an intent to pre-empt state law, a state statute is pre…
• Tyler Pipe Indus., Inc. v. Wash. State Dep't of Revenue, 483 U.S. 232 (U.S. 1987)
  …e taxpayers’ arguments that the B & 0 tax is not fairly apportioned to reflect the amount of business conducted in the State and is not fairly related to the services rendered by Washington. We noted probable jurisdiction of the taxpayers’ appeals, 479 U. S. 810 (1986), and now reverse in part and affirm in part. We first consider the claims of the taxpayers that have manufacturing facilities in Washington and market their products in other States; their challenge is directed to the fact that the manufactur…