The Post-Cuno Litigation Landscape

Morgan Holcomb

Hamline University - School of Law

Nick Smith

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., Cuno

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: December 28, 2011  

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

Contact Information

Morgan Holcomb (Contact Author)
Hamline University - School of Law ( email )
1536 Hewitt Avenue
Saint Paul, MN 55104-1237
United States
Nicholas A. Smith
affiliation not provided to SSRN
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 451
Downloads: 11