Kern-Limerick, Inc. v. Scurlock

2 Citing briefs

  1. McCLAIN v. SAV-ON DRUGS

    Non-Title Respondent, California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, Response to Amicus Curiae Brief

    Filed July 12, 2018

    Wherean interest asserted to be protected by due process is grounded - in state law, courts look to the provisions of that law to determine whether 13 The many additional cases cited by amicus Bekkermanthat involve federal and tribal tax immunity—not due process—arethusoflittle assistance. (See Kern-Limerick, Inc. v. Scurlock (1954) 347 U.S. 110; First Agricultural Nat. Bank v. State Tax Com. (1968) 392 U.S. 339; U.S. v. State Tax Com. ofMiss. (1975) 421 U.S. 599; Cal. State Bd. ofEqualizationv.

  2. McCLAIN v. SAV-ON DRUGS

    Amicus Curiae Brief of Alina Bekkerman, Jenny Lee, Brandon Griffith, and Charles Lisser

    Filed May 21, 2018

    (First Ag., supra, 392 U.S. at p. 374.) While First Agricultural Nat’! Bank addressed an issue of federal immunity, Kern-Limerick, Inc. v. Scurlock (1954) 347 U.S. 110 (“Kern- Limerick’) had previously espoused a broader standard: “One might conclude this Court was saying that a state court might interpret its tax statute so as to throwtaxliability whereit chose... -- 16-- Such a conclusion ... would deny the long [established] principle that the duty rests on this Court to decide for itself facts or constructions upon which federal constitutional issues rest.” ? (Id. at p. 121-122 (emphasis added).