Tag Archives: North Dakota

South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. (2018) – A Case Brief

Posted by Thomas DeFrancesco.

South Dakota has a state tax for sales of goods and services that are made by retailers of the state. Out-of-state retailers were making sales to customers in the state of South Dakota and not collecting and remitting sales tax in South Dakota. However, these retailers are allowed to do that based on the ruling made in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 and National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Ill., 386 U.S. 753. The state was worried they were losing funding due to out-of-state retailers not collecting and remitting the South Dakota’s sales tax. To solve this concern, South Dakota created a law that commanded out-of-state retailers who make more than 200 sales transactions and at least $100,000 in revenue from those sales to collect and remit sales tax as if they were located in South Dakota. Companies who met those requirements failed to follow the newly made law so the South Dakota legislature brought the issue to court.

Should the respondents have to register for licenses to collect and remit the sales tax regardless if they are physically present in the state or not?

South Dakota law is permitted to tax sales from sellers who are outside of that particular state as long as the seller collects at least $100,000 in sales revenue or more than 200 sales transactions.

The court derived its reasoning from other cases including Quill v. North Dakota and National Bella Hess v. Department of Revenue of Ill. The court explained how the physical presence rule in Quill v. North Dakota is “unsound and incorrect.” Since the internet has such a great impact on business, retailers who do business through the internet must pay taxes in that particular state of the sale. Therefore, the Quill v. North Dakota reasoning is no longer relevant.

Thomas is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2021.

Source:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-494_j4el.pdf

California Law on Eggs Hurting the Economy?

Posted by Gen Nagai

A law passed on 2015 that eggs sold in California have to come from hen that have enough room for them to stretch in their cages. This may also be known as “free-ranged eggs”. The purpose of this is to not only let the hen live a better life but studies have found that not giving them the ideal way of living increases the chances of getting salmonella from the eggs that they produce.

This may sound good, however, bad news come with it. Firstly, consumers will have to expect prices of the eggs to rise. Secondly, there may be a shortage of eggs may occur as 90% of eggs come from places where it is not acceptable to sell according to the California Law.

Today, over a dozen states have filled a law suit directly to the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday (Dec.04, 2017) to block this law as it violates the U.S. Constitution’s interstate commerce clause and are pre-empted by federal law. Although, a similar case has been rejected 6 different times by 6 different states, Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley is confident in the new lawsuit as he has economic studies to back his case up.  He has mentioned that California’s egg law has cost consumers nationwide up to $350 million annually as a result of higher egg prices.

States that are backing up this case include Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin.

Gen is a business information technology management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/04/the-associated-press-the-latest-13-states-challenge-to-california-egg-law.html

 

Justices Mull the Constitutionality of “Refusal” Statutes

Several states have statutes that make it a crime to refuse to take a breathalyzer if suspected of driving under the influence. Some states, like New Jersey, make refusal a civil offense. The High Court is reviewing statutes in North Dakota and Minnesota that make it a crime for people suspected of drunken driving to refuse to take alcohol tests. Drivers prosecuted under those laws claim they violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.

The justices questioned lawyers representing the states as to why police cannot be required to get a telephonic warrant every time they want a driver to take an alcohol test. “Justice Stephen Breyer pointed to statistics showing that it takes an average of only five minutes to get a warrant over the phone in Wyoming and 15 minutes to get one in Montana.”  However, this may not be correct.

“Kathryn Keena, a county prosecutor representing Minnesota, suggested some rural areas may have only one judge on call, making it too burdensome to seek a warrant every time. She said even if a warrant were procured, a driver could still refuse to take the test and face lesser charges for obstruction of a warrant than for violating drunken driving test laws.”

Telephonic warrants have also been the rule in New Jersey since 2009. Recently, the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed itself, reverting back to the federal standard requiring police to obtain a warrant after establishing they have probable cause. Under the more stringent standard of using telephonic warrants, police were complaining it took to long to reach a judge. Police also used consent forms they carried, causing an outcry from the defense bar that such a practice may lead to further abuses. Justice Anthony Kennedy said the states are asking for “an extraordinary exception” to the warrant rule by making it a crime for drivers to assert their constitutional rights.

The problem for the states is that without the threat of a refusal penalty, the only proof available at trial as to whether someone was intoxicated while driving is the observations made by police. Observations, however, cannot prove blood alcohol level.

Eminent Domain

Research project posted by Rafael Gabrieli.

Eminent Domain

Part I:

Eminent domain is the power to take private property for public use by a state or national government. There would be just compensation for the private property seized, however, many problems arise from this act. The way that eminent domain works is that it is backed by the Fifth Amendment to the US.  Constitution, which is that your state government has power over all property in the State, even private land. The land can be taken without the consent of the owner, as long as he or she is justly compensated. The purposes for which eminent domain vary, however, it has to be used for a public good somehow. This means that roads, courthouses, schools, or any other infrastructure that can benefit the public will come into place of the land that the government took using eminent domain. The state government or national government is able to use eminent domain for large-scale public works operations or even growing freeway systems.

Part II:

Pros:

In Houston, Texas, land was obtained by the use of eminent domain in order to create the Minute Maid Park baseball stadium, which has benefitted the surrounding community immensely. The baseball stadium brings millions of people each year to downtown Houston. What is amazing to see is to compare it with the Houston community before the stadium was built, which was very barren and unsocial.

The I-85 widening project in Concord, North Carolina will reshape the way inhabitants travel around Concord. The inhabitants are being justly compensated, and some are even getting 5%-10% more than the initial appraisal value. This new freeway widening will allow traffic to be lessened during rush hours, which posed a big problem for the city during the past couple of years. It is a necessary and responsible use of eminent domain.

Cons:

Private property could have sentimental value, like a house that has been in the family for generations. This is the case with the Keeler family from Claverack, New York, who lived in their house for four generations and were being forced out due to the state’s plan to expand power lines. Another problem with eminent domain is that the price that the owner feels he deserves is more than what is being offered to him. This happened to Rich Quam, owner of a house in Fargo, North Dakota since 1997. The town stated that his backyard could become structurally unstable, so the city offered him an amount to buy the property from him. Rich Quam declared it an insult however, because the amount did not reflect the years of hard work he put into renovating the house, adding a second level and a garage. A third problem is the simple desire to not want to abandon a profitable business, which almost occurred a couple years back to Perry Beaton, property co-owner of a Burger King that the city of North Kansas City was attempting to seize from him.

Part III:

In Economic Justice for All, it is stated that the common good may sometimes demand that the right to own be limited by public involvement in the planning or ownership of certain sectors of the economy, which is essentially the basis for eminent domain. Catholic support of private ownership does not mean that anyone has the right to unlimited accumulation of wealth, rather, it states that “no one is justified in keeping for his exclusive use what he does not need, when others lack necessities.” Thus being the Catholic Social Teaching stance on Eminent Domain: if it is for the public good, an individual should be more than willing to give up his property that is not essential to his well-being in order to further the development of society and his surroundings.

Works Cited

Clayton, Adam. “Family Rallies to save Farmland from Eminent Domain.” Columbia-Greene Media. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

“Economic Justice for All.” Wall Common Good Selected Texts. N.p., n.d. Book. 10 Mar. 2016.

Lewis, David. “Eminent Domain: Still A Useful Tool Despite Its Recent Thrashing.” Planetizen. Planetizen, 5 Sept. 2006. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

Messina, Ignazio. “City Threatens Eminent Domain.” Toledo Blade. N.p., 26 Jan. 2014. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

Reaves, Tim. “Making Way for the Freeway: Eminent Domain Claims Homes.” Independent Tribune. Independent Tribune, 7 June 2015. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

Ross, John. “Hands Off! North Kansas City Loses Eminent Domain Case « Watchdog.org.” Watchdogorg RSS. N.p., 23 Jan. 2014. Web. 26 Jan. 2014.