Ex Parte Hoover, Inc.
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the Court
The Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution states that "[t]he Congress shall have power . . . [t]o regulate commerce . . . among the several states. . . ." U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 3. Notably absent from this text is any explicit prohibition on state regulation of interstate commercial activity. Nonetheless, the United States Supreme Court, in what is referred to as its "dormant" or "negative" Commerce Clause jurisprudence, has concluded that such a constitutional principle exists. "The negative or dormant implication of the Commerce Clause prohibits state taxation . . . or…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. BradySupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of Ore.Supreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Hughes v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- New Energy Co. of Indiana v. LimbachSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- STATE, DEPT. OF REVENUE v. Hoover, Inc.Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2007
- Hooks v. Coastal Stone Works, Inc.Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2014
- Dees v. CoakerCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2009
- Ex Parte State of Alabama Dept. of RevenueSupreme Court of Alabama · 2008
- Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. v. Louisiana Tax CommissionLouisiana Court of Appeal · 2009
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.