Bloomingdale's by Mail Ltd. v. Huddleston
Tennessee Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
2Per curiam
The parties have agreed that the disposition of this case is controlled by the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1904, 119 L.Ed.2d 91 (1992). Therefore the decision of the Chancery Court granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants is vacated. The revised assessment is set aside in its entirety. The Plaintiff is not obligated to collect or remit Tennessee use tax.
The parties do not, however, agree concerning what law governs the award of attorneys’ fees. For reasons hereinafter set forth, we hold that the upper limit on…
3Cases cited13 opinions
- Gomez v. ToledoSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Hutto v. FinneySupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Blanchard v. BergeronSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Howlett Ex Rel. Howlett v. RoseSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Maher v. GagneSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by17 opinions
- Hardcastle v. HarrisCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2004
- In Re Estate of GreenamyreCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2005
- Wimley v. RudolphTennessee Supreme Court · 1996
- State Ex Rel. Hanson v. Quill Corp.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1993
- Cheatham County, Tennessee v. Cheatham County Board of Zoning Appeals and Randall and Margaret MooneyhanCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2012
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.