Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Mikulski v. Centerior Energy Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided August 21, 2007No. 03-4486Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMartha Craig Daughtrey, Circuit Judge
A majority of the court relies upon two bases for its decision today that federal courts may not exercise jurisdiction over the claims asserted by the plaintiffs in this case. First, the majority concludes “that 26 U.S.C. § 7422 does not preempt the present case.” With that determination, I am in full agreement. Second, the majority states that there is no substantial federal interest in obtaining a federal court decision regarding the effective date of a provision of the federal Internal Revenue Code that will enhance the ability of a federal agency to collect the monies necessary to carry…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & ManufacturingSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
- Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeighSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
- Custer County Action Ass'n v. GarveyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2001
- Mikulski v. Centerior Energy Corp.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2006