The Post-Cuno Litigation Landscape
Hamline University - School of Law
affiliation not provided to SSRN
January 1, 2008
Case Western Reserve Law Review, Vol. 58, No. 4, p. 1157, 2008
In 1996, Northeastern University School of Law Professor Peter Enrich wrote a groundbreaking article, in which he argued that certain state tax incentives are unconstitutional as violations of the Commerce Clause. This article begins by describing the constitutional landscape into which Enrich cast his argument, and them turns describe the litigation that Enrich’s article has generated, including the much-watched case, Cuno v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., which held the promise of resolving this dormant Commerce Clause question, only to wither away on the vine of standing. Following the discussion of Cuno, this article will turn to an exploration of the litigation that proceeded in two state courts: Minnesota and North Carolina. The authors conclude by offering their perspective on the trends that appear from the state court litigation.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 27
Keywords: Post-cuno, tax incentive, JOBZ, Job Opportunity Building Zone, Enrich, Commerce Clause, DaimlerChrysler Corp., CunoAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: December 28, 2011
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo6 in 0.406 seconds