Couchot v. State Lottery Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtAlice Robie Resnick, J.
The only issues before the court are whether the relevant portions of Am.Sub.H.B. No. Ill, as applied to nonresident lottery winners under the facts of this case, violate due process, interfere with interstate commerce, or constitute unlawful retroactive legislation.4
I
The court of appeals determined that Am.Sub.H.B. No. Ill, as applied in this case, violates due process because Ohio lacked a sufficient nexus with Couchot to exercise the authority to tax his lottery winnings. The court determined that while Ohio would have had the constitutional authority to tax Couchot on his lottery winnings…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Quill Corp. v. North Dakota Ex Rel. HeitkampSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Wisconsin v. J. C. Penney Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Welch v. HenrySupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- United States Department of Treasury v. FabeSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Shaffer v. CarterSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Borden Chemicals & Plastics, L.P. v. ZehnderAppellate Court of Illinois · 2000
- Dunlap v. Alcuin Montessori SchoolAppellate Court of Illinois · 1998
- Crutchfield Corp. v. Testa (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
- Agley v. TracyOhio Supreme Court · 1999
- Capital One Bank v. Commissioner of RevenueMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2009
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.