27 Pages Posted: 28 Dec 2011
Date Written: January 1, 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.
Keywords: Post-cuno, tax incentive, JOBZ, Job Opportunity Building Zone, Enrich, Commerce Clause, DaimlerChrysler Corp., Cuno
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Holcomb, Morgan and Smith, Nick, The Post-Cuno Litigation Landscape (January 1, 2008). Case Western Reserve Law Review, Vol. 58, No. 4, p. 1157, 2008. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1976289