## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09

- 3432 C ITY OF C HI CAGO, I LLINO IS, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. S T UB H UB !, I NCO RPORATE D , D efend a nt-A pp ellee

.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 08 C3284

—Wayn e R. Andersen, Ju dge

.
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 8, 2010

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 29, 2010

Befo re E AST E RB R OO K, Chi e f Judg e, a nd B AUERa nd K ANN E , C ircu it Judges . E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e

f Judg e . T h e res al e o fti cket s t o sp or ts , con c er ts , an d oth er ev en t s u s u a lly is illeg al in I l linoi s, i fthe ti cket s fetch m or e than the or i gi nal p ric e. 72 0 IL C S 3 75 /1 .5(a ). R e s ale ata p re m iu m is ca l l ed sc al pi ng, a nd r ul es tha t forbi d i t ev enwhenthe eve nts’ pro m ote rs ar e co ntent to al l ow res al e hav e pu zzle d e c o n o m ist s. Se e C ra ig A . D ep ke n, I I, Anothe rl ook a t2 N o. 09

- 3432

a n ti-s calping l aw s: Th eory and evidenc e, 1 3 0 P ub l i c Ch oi ce 55 ( 2006 ) ; PascalCourty, So m e E conom ics of TicketResale, 17 J
. Econ. Per specti ves 85 ( Spring 20 03) ; S tephen K. H appel & M ar i anne M
. J enni ngs, Assess ing th e E co nom ic R ationale a nd Legal Re m e di e s f

orTicke tSc al pi ng, 16 J
. Leg i sl at i o n 1 ( 1 9 8 9 ) ; S he r wi n Ro s e n & And r e w M. R o s e nfi e l d, Tick et Pri ci ng, 40 J. L
. & Ec on. 351 (19 9 7 ). Cf. U ni t e d S t at e s v. M oun t, 96 6 F .2d 26 2 ( 7th Ci r. 19 92) ( disc ussi ng o ne poten tial j us tification for restrictions on resell ing tickets). In19 91 Il lin ois au th or ize d tic ke t b ro ke rs to res ell ti cket s a t p rem i um pri ces, 72 0 I LC S 375/ 1. 5( b) , i fthey re gis t e re d w ith th e Illino is Se c re ta ry of St at e a n d co ll ec te d al ll oca lta xes

— f orm unici pal i ti es i n I l l i noi s t ax th e se l l i ngpr i ce o ft i ck et s, s ee 6 5 I LCS 5/ 11

- 42

- 5, and wan t to c o l l ec t addi ti o na lt ax es o n the di ffer en ce b etwee n the or i gi nal sel l i ng pri ce and a ny hi gher re sal e pr ice . Si nce 19 95 th e C ity of C h i c a g o h as ta ke n ad va n ta ge of th is opportunity t o tax th e in c re m entalpri ce o fr eso l d ti cket s. Ch i cago M unicipa l C ode §4 –156 –020
. The ta x i s 9 % o f th e o r i g i na lpr i ce , a nd a fur th er9 % o fa ny pr o fi t o n a ti cket ’ s r esa l e. I l l i no i s amende d i ts s ca l pi ngl aws a g ain in 2 00 5, a ddi ng a new subsec tio n ( c) to the Tic ketS al e a nd Resa l e Act. 720 I LC S 375/ 1. 5( c)
. Thi s a m en d m ent a l l ows an “Inter net aucti on l i sting se rv i ce” to rese ll t i cket s, but i t a tta ches seve ra lco nd i ti ons. One i s that the auct i on s er vice re gi ste r w i th bo th the S ecr eta ryof S tat e a nd the Dep ar tm ent ofFinanci aland Pro fess i onalRegul ati on. A nother is th a t t h e a u c tio n se rv ice eith er co llec t a n d rem it al lr equi r ed ta xe s o r pub l i sh“ a wri tt enno ti ce o n theN o. 09

- 3432 3

w ebsi te afterthe sal e o fo ne o r m or e tic ket s that a utom at i ca l l y i nf o r m s th e ti ck etr es el l ero fthe t i ck etr es ell er’s potenti all ega lo bl i gat i on t o pay anyappli cabl e l oca l am u se m en t tax in c on n ec tio n w ith th e res elle r’ s s a le ofti cket s, and dis cl ose s t o l aw enf or cem ent o r othe r gov er nm ent t ax offi ci al s, witho u t subpoena, the nam e, c ity , sta te , tele p h on e n u m b er , e-m ail a d d re s s , u se r ID hi st o r y, fr au d c o m pl aint s, a nd biddinga nd l i st i ng hi sto ryo fany speci fi cal l y i de n tifi ed re sel l ero r pu rchas er up on the r ecei pt ofa v er ifi ed re quest fro m l aw enf or cem en t or o th er gov er n m en t t ax offic ials rela tin g t o a cr im ina li n v e s t i g a t i o n o r a l l e g e d i l l e g a la c t i v i t y ”
. 7 2 0 I LCS 375/1.5(c)( 6)(B). StubH ub!, wh i ch oper ate s a n I nter net a ucti on s i te, has re gi ste re d w i th the appropr i ate o ffi ci al s a nd per m i ts i ts cl i ents to re sel lti ckets to e vents i n I l l i noi s. I t co l l ects c om m iss ion s fro m bo th th e s elle r (15 % of th e re s a le pri ce) and the buyer(10 % of the r esa l e pr i ce) but does not co ll ectt ax es . Ins te ad i t pr o vi des e ac h r es el l era nd buy erwi ththe no ti ce r equir ed by§ 1. 5( c) ( 6) ( B) a nd st an ds r ea dy to fur ni sht ax i ngj ur i sdi ct i o ns wi ththe in for m ati on s peci fi ed by that subsect i on. Chica go do e s n o tth i n kth a ti two u l d b e wo r th wh i l e t o p u r s ue thousands o fper son s for a few dol l ar s a pie ce; i nstea d i t want s S tu bHub! a nd s i m i l ars er vi ce s to c o l l ec t an d rem it th e tax es. (Ev en w he n th e stakes are l arger, tr ac k i ngdo wn r et ai lt r an sa ct i o ns a nd e ns ur i ngpa y m en t can be di ffi cul t. S ee Hem i Group, LLC v. New Y o rkCity, 13 0 S
. Ct
. 9 83 ( 20 10 )
. ) Chi ca g o ’ s o r di na nc es ha ve l o ng p ro vi ded thatsa l es age nts m ust co l l ect and rem i t i ts am usem ent t axes; a re cent am endm ent t o §4–1 56– 01 0 of4 N o. 09

- 3432 th e M uni ci palCo de sa y s th ata “r es el l er ’ s ag en t” mean s “a perso n w ho, f orco nsi derat i on, r ese l l s a ticke t on b eh alf ofth e t ick et ’ s o w n er or a ss ist s t h e o w n er in re sel l i ng the ti cket

. The te rm i nc lu d es but i s no t l i m i ted to a n a uc t i o ne e r, a b r o k e r o r a s e l l e r o ft i c k e t s f o r am usem ents
. . . and a p pli es w hetherthe ti cketi s r eso l d by bi ddi ng, c o ns i g nm en t o r o th er wi se , a nd whe th erthe ti cketi s r eso l d i n pers on, ata si te on the Inter net o r ot h er w ise .” B ec au se Stu b H u b ! h a s t ak en th e p os itio n th at Il lin ois l aw per m i ts i t t o disr ega rd m unici pal ta xes, Chica go fi l ed thi s s uiti n sta te cour t s eek i ng a j ud gm ent that StubH ub! i s re sponsibl e f or the am usem ent tax. S tubH ub! rem oved the p roceed ing to f e d eral court u nd er the d iversi ty j uri sdic ti on. 28 U
. S. C. §133 2( a)
. A di str i ct j ud ge dism i sse d C hi cago ’ s co m pla i nt under Fed. R. 12 ( b) ( 6)
. 62 2 F. S up p. 2d 69 9 ( N
. D. Ill. 20 09)
. I t hel d that, wh ethero r not the Ci ty has t h e au th or i ty to l evya tax o n re sal es an d d es ign at e St u b H u b ! as a “r es elle r’s ag en t,” t h e t a x is preem pted by the Pr eem pti on A c t, 65 I LC S 5/ 8–11 –6a, whi chpr o hibi ts ho m e- r ul e m uni ci pal i ti es fr o m us i ng th eir au th or ity to ta x th e “ sa le or p u rc h as e o f ta n gib le o r pe r so na lpr o perty” bas ed o n a pe r ce nt ag e o fthe sal es pri ce. A n i nter m edi ate co urt i n I l l i noi s has st ate d that ti cket s a re “t angibl e per sonalpro perty, ” s ee M r. B ’s, Inc. v. Chi cago , 3 0 2 I l l

. App
. 3 d 9 3 0 , 9 3 5 , 7 0 6 N. E. 2 d 1 0 01, 10 05 –0 6 (1 99 8), an d th e d ist ric t jud ge th ou gh t t h is d ispositive. W he n sitting in d iversity, a fed eral court s ho ul d fo l l ow the de c i s i o n o fa n i nt e r med i a t e s t a t e a ppel l ate co urt “unless i t i s co nvi nced by othe r persuas i ve da t a tha tthe h i g he s tc o urt o fthe s t a t e wo ul d d e c i deN o. 09

- 3432 5 othe rwis e . ”We s tv . A T &T , 3 11 U
. S
. 2 23 , 2 37( 19 40 )
. The di s t r i c t j u d g e d i d n o t th i n k th a t a n y d e c i s i o n by the Sup rem e C ou rt of I ll inois i m p lies a cont rary un d erst an d in g of “ ta n gib le p er so n al p ro p er ty .” The parti es’ bri ef s on appeal disc uss at l ength w h et her Ch i ca g o h a s the a utho r i t y t o t a x the r e s a l e o ft i c k e t s by I nter net a ucti on s er vi ces

— and, i fi t doe s, wh etherthat au th o r i tyi s su per se ded bye i th erthe 2 00 5 a m en dm en t to the Ti cketS al e a nd Resa l e A c t orbythe Pree m pti on A ct. Fo r re aso ns thatwe disc uss l ate r, we thi nk i t a pp ro pr i a t e t o a s kthe S up r e me Co ur to fI l l i noi s t o de c i de w hetherChica go m ay re quir e S tubH ub! to col l ect a nd r e mi tth e t a x . C e r t i fi c a t i o n o fa s t a t e - l a w i s s u e i s a ppropri ate , however, o nl y i f t h at i ssue i s di sposi ti ve. StubH ub! conte nd s that federa lla w bl ock s Chi cago fr o m i mpo s i n ga t a x o n In t e r n e ta uct i o n s i t e s , s o we add re ss that possibi l i ty fi rs t. S tu bHub! r el i es on t wo fede r als ta tu te s: § 23 0( e) o fthe Comm uni ca ti o ns De cency Act, 4 7 U. S
. C. § 23 0( c) , a nd the I nter net Tax F re edom A ct, 47U
. S. C. §151 n ote. S ecti on 23 0’ s ti tl e, “ Pr o te ct i o n fo r pr i vate b l o ck i nga nd s cr ee ni ng ofo ffensi ve m ate ri al ”, does notsug ge st that i t l i m i ts ta xe s th a t h a v e n o th i n g t o d o wi th th e c o n t e n t o fa ny sp ee c h (th e C ity ’s t ax is th e s am e w h e t h er th e t h ea te r is p erform ing “Sou th Pac ific” or “H air”). Sub sect ion (c)’ s ca ptio n, “ Pr o te ct i o n fo r ‘ Goo d S amar i ta n’ b l o ck i nga nd sc re en in g of o ffen siv e m at er ial” b o d es ev en les s w ell f o r S tu bHub!

. Buti t no ne th el es s i nsis ts tha t th e st atutory t e xt e s t ab l i s he s a t a x i mm un i t y . S ub s e c t i o n ( c ) pro vi des:6 N o. 09

- 3432 ( 1 ) N o p r o v i d e r o r us e r o fa n i n t e r a c t i v e c o mpu terse rv i ce s hal lbe tr ea te d as the pu bl i shero r speake r ofany i nfo rm ati on pro vid ed byano ther inform ation con ten t prov ider. ( 2 ) N o p r o v i d e r o r u s e r o fa n i n t e r a c t i v e c o mpu terse rv i ce s hal lbe hel d l i abl e o n acco unt of

— ( A ) any acti on vo l u n tari l y t ake n i n go od f ai th to re str i ct a cces s t o orava i l abi l i ty ofm ate ri al that the pr ovi der or userco nsi ders to be obscene, l ew d, l asci vi ous, fi l thy, exce ssi vel y v i ol ent, har ass i ng, or othe rwis e obj ecti onabl e, w he th ero r no t su chmate r i ali s co ns ti tu
ti onal l y pr ote cted; o r (B ) an y a c tio n t a k e n to en ab le or m ak e a va ilabl e t o i nfo rm ati on co ntent provi ders or othe rs the techni calm eans to r est ri ct a cces s to m aterial d escribed i n p aragrap h (1). S tu bHub! r el i es o n s ubs ec ti o n ( c) ( 1)
. As e ar l i erde ci si o ns i n thi s ci rcui t e stab lish, subsect i on ( c) ( 1) does notcr eat e a n “ i mm un i t y ” o f a ny k i nd

. S ee D o e v. G TE C o rp . , 34 7 F.3d 655 , 660 (7th C ir. 2003); C hi c a g o La w yers’ C o m m ittee f orCi vi l Rights U nde rLa w, Inc . v. c r aigs l i s t, Inc ., 51 9 F
. 3d 666, 669– 7 1 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 8 )
. I tl i mi t s wh o ma y b e c a l l ed the publ i sher o f inf or m ati on that a pp ear s o nl i ne. That m i ght m att erto l i abi l i ty f ord efam ati on, o bsce ni ty, o r copyr i ght infr i ngem ent. But Chicag o’ s a m usem ent t ax does not depend o n w ho “ pu bl i shes ” a ny i nfo rm ati on o r i s a “s peaker ”. S ecti on 2 30( c) i s i rr el evant
. T h e t i t l e o fth e In t e r n e tT a x F r e e d o m Ac ti s mo r e p r o misi ng . A s w ith m ost stat ut es, how ever, the d etails areN o. 09

- 3432 7

m or e co m ple x than the ti tl e por tends. The sta tute does not cre ate “t ax fre edom ” fortr ansact i ons on the Int ernet but i nstea d for bi ds “[ m ] ult i ple o r disc ri m i natory t axes on e le c tronic com m erce.” Section 1101 (a). Th ese are defined ter m s. S ecti on 1 105( 6) sa ys that a “ m ult i ple ” t ax m eans tw o sta tes taxi ng the sam e thi ng w i thou t a ta x c re d it. T h er e is on ly on e t ax on tic ke ts for e ve n ts in C h icago ( the l oca ti on o fthe ev en t e nsures thatno othe r m unici pal i ty can l evya tax)
. S ecti on 1 106( C) dri ve s that poi nt hom e byst atin g th at sal es and use ta xes o n “tan gible p erson al prop erty” are valid even i f th ey oth erw i se w oul d be ca l l ed “m ulti ple ” t axes. S o i f, as a m att er ofI l l i noi s l aw , ti cket s a re “t angible per sonalpro perty ”, the rule ag ai nst m ult i ple ta xes would n ot applyev en ifthere w erem ultiple tax es (w hich there aren ’t). Se cti on 1 105( 2) ( B)( i i ) defi nes a ta x as “dis cri m i natory” i f“ a p r o v i d e r o fIn t e r n e ta c c e s s s e r v i c e o r o n l i ne ser vi ces is d ee m ed to be the a gent ofa re m ote se l l erf or det er m i ni ng ta x co l l ec ti on ob l i g at i o ns s olelyas a re su lt of

— ( I ) the displ ay ofa re m ote se l l er ’ s info rm atio n or c o nt e nto n the o ut
- o f

- S t a t e c o mput e r s e r v e r o fa p r o v i der o fInt erne t ac ce ss s er vi ce o r o nli ne s er vi ce s; o r ( I I ) the p ro c essi ng o fo rder s thro ugh the out- of

- St ate co m pu ter se r ve r o fa pr o vi dero fInt erne t ac ce ss s er vi ce o r o nl i ne ser vi ces. ” ( E m phasi s a dd ed. ) Chica go deem s a n el ectr oni c auct ion s er vi ce t o be a r ese l l er ’ s a gent, but not “so l el y” because i t di spl ays i nfo rm ati on or proce sse s or d er s. R ec all th e d efin itio n al c lau se of C h ic a g o ’s o rd ina nc e : a resell er’s agent i s “a p erson w ho, f or cons iderati on, r ese l l s a ti c ke t on be hal fo fthe ti cket ’ s o w ner or as si st s th e o wneri n r es el l i ngthe t i ck et
. The term i n-8 N o. 09

- 3432 clud es bu t is not l im ited to an auc tioneer, a b r o ker or a sel l erof t ickets f oram usem ents
. . . and appli es w hether th e ticket is r e s old by bid d ing, con signm en t or otherw i se, and w hetherthe ti cketi s r eso l d in p er son, ata si te o n the Inter ne to r o the r wi s e . ” Ch i c a g o Mun i c i pa lCo de §4–1 56–0 10. Thi s s ays t hat the l oca ti on a nd te chnol ogy ofan a ucti on m us t b e ign or ed; i t doe s no t m ake anyth in g t u rn on th e ro le of a co m p u t er se rv er or th e p ro visi on o fel ectr oni c se rv i ces. W eb s i tes such a s craigsl i st tha tl i s ti t e ms f o r s a l e , a ft e r the fas hi on o fc l a s s i fi e d a ds i n new spa pers, but do not parti ci pate in the re sal e t ra nsacti on, ar e no t res el l er s’ agents und erChica go’ s o rdi nance (an d m igh t p os se ss a ta x im m u n ity u n d er §1 10 5(2 )(B )(ii) if th ey w er e). B u t in te rm ed iar ies th at ta ke an a c t ive role i n sta gi ng an aucti on a nd exchanging g oo ds f orm oney, as StubH ub! does, ar e r ese l l er s’ ag ents no m att erwh at technol ogytheyem plo y. Because the o rdi nance a pp l i es equa l l y t o t ick etr es al es a t phy si ca la uct i o n h o us es , the Chi ca g o Bo ar d ofTra de, and ve nue s s ucha s S tu bHub! , the tax i s not “d iscrim inatory” u nd er §1105 (2)( B )( ii ). This concl usi on brings us backto I l l i noi s l aw . S tubH ub! conte nd s that Chi cago ’ s tax i s no t withi n the City ’ s ho m erule pow er s be cause i t a cts as an o ccupati on t ax w hen appli ed to el ectr oni c i nter m ed i ar i es. S tubH ub! al so m ai ntai ns that the sta te’ s deci si on n ot to l abel el ectron ic-com m er ce s i tes as “a gents ” in the 2005 l egi sl ati on m ea n s that a m unici pal i ty cannot deem them so

— eve n though none o fthe 200 5 a m endm ent’ s l anguage f orbi d s th at desi gnati on. The ar gum ent, i n other w or ds, i s that a l though the l egi sl ati ve hi sto ryo fa federa l st atu te m ay be us ed o nl y t o r es o l ve a m bi g ui ti es i n theN o. 09

- 3432 9 enacte d text, se e P uerto R i c o D epa rtm ent o f C o nsu m er A ffa irs v . IS LA P etroleu m C o rp ., 48 5 U .S. 49 5 (1 98 8), Illino is w oul d gi ve the for ce o fl aw to l egi sl ati ve hi sto rythat ex pl ains the abs enceo fpart i cul arpro vi si ons in the l egi slat ion . Fin ally , St u b H u b ! co n te n d s t h at w e s h ou ld f ol l ow the concl usi on o fM r. B’s thatthe l ega li nci dence ofChica go’s am usem ent t ax i s o n the ti cket, a bi t o f “tang ibl e per sonal pro perty, ” r atherthan, as the City co nt en ds, o n th e ti ck et ’ s g r an t o f a l i ce ns e to atten d the eve nt. I fChica go pla ced a tax on patent ro yal ti es, thatta x woul d no t be de emed o ne o n the pa pero n whi chthe contr act w as w ri tte n, ev en t h ou gh the physi calco ntra ct i s “ tangibl e per sonalpro perty
. ” Chi cago m ai ntai ns that thi s i s e qually t rue ofti cket s. The a r g um en t tha t th e amuse m en t ta x i s o n the physi cal ti cket hel ped Chi cago w in M r. B’s ; Chica go now r egr ets ta l ki ng the cour t into that concl usi on. I t i s no t a fede r alc o ur t’ s j o b to e xt r ac t a l i ti g an t fr o m a ho l e dug f ori tse l fi n sta te l i ti gat i on. But the Suprem e Cour t o f I l l i noi s i s not bound b y the appell ate de c isio n inM r. B’s
. W e’ re not“bo un d ” byi t e i ther

—but we shoul d not g o aga i nst i t unl ess per suaded that the Su p re m e Cour t o f I l l i noi s would di sapprove i t. The Suprem e Cour t o f I l l i noi s has neve r add re sse d any o f the thr ee pri nci pal qu esti o ns i n di spu te b etwee n the pa r ti es : whethe r the tax work s a s a n occ u p at ion tax, wh etherthe hi sto ryo f th e 20 05 a m en dm en t pr ev en ts Chi ca g o fr o m de fi ni ng I nt e r ne ta uc t i o n s i t e s a s r e s e l l e r s ’ a g e nt s , a nd wh ether the am us e men tt a x i s o ne o n “ t a ng ib l e p e r s o na lp r o per ty. ” The subj ect ther ef or e i s withi n the sco pe ofI l l

. S
. Ct. R. 20 , wh i ch perm i ts thi s co urt to cer ti fy determ i nati ve10 N o. 09

- 3432 iss u es for w h ich “t h er e a re n o c on tr ollin g p r e c e d en ts ” in the S up re m e Cour t o fI l l i noi s. The questi on wh ether C h ica go ca n ta x th e re sa le of t ick et s o n ele c tr on ic au c tio n sit es als o is im p or ta n t f o r a ll m u n icip alit ies in Illino is

— and fo r the peo ple wh o w ou ld be s ubj ect to the t ax i fthe Citypre vai l s. Certi fi cati on ad ds to the cos t o fl i ti gat i on a nd m ay del ay i ts outco m e. There ar e m any web-base d aucti on sites. I f th is m ean t th at a lot of sim il ar ca s e s w ere u n d er w ay in b ot h st at e an d fed er al cou rt, th er e w ou ld b e l i t t l e r e a s o n t o c e r t i fy o ne t o the S up r e me Cour t o f I l l i no i s. W e co ul d m ak e a dec i si o n, c onfi den t th ata ny err o r w o uld be correcte d by the state j ud ici ary before to o mu c h t i me h a d p a s s e d

. As f a r a s we c a n t e l l, h o wev er , th e s ta te j u d icia ry w ill be u n ab le t o ad d re ss th is su bj ec t unl es s we c er ti fy . The r e ar e o nl y t wo pendi ng c a s e s, b ot h in fe d er al c ou rt . (Th e o th er is C h i c ag o v . e Bay Inc. , N o. 10

- 1144, wh i ch w as argued i n tandem with th e s u i t a ga in st Stu b H u b !, an d w h ich w e w ill ho ld in ab ey an c e p en d in g t h e re so lu tio n of th is p ro c ee d in g.) Both sui ts bega n i n sta te cour t and w er e rem ove d und erthe di v e r s i t y j ur i s di c t i o n. Anys i mi l a r s ui tl i kew i se w ou ld be re m ovabl e. ( A s f aras we know, none o f th e w eb-bas ed aucti on s i tes i s incor pora ted i n I l l i noi s o r has i ts pri nci pal pl ace ofbu sin es s ther e. ) Thi s m eans that the s tat e j ud i ci ar y m ay ne ve r h ave an o pp or tuni ty to resolve this d ispu te. T he on ly w ay th e federa l j ud ici ary can be sur e that i t i s a pp l yi ng authe nti c st ate la w i s t o cer ti fy the subj ect to sta te cour t. W e the refore r esp ectfu ll y requ est th e Sup rem e C ou rt ofI l l i noi s t o i nfo rm u s w hetherm unici pal i ti es m ayN o. 09

- 3432 11

re q u ire ele c tr on ic in te rm ed iar ies to co llec t a n d rem it am usem ent taxes on re sol d t i cket s. W e phrase th e q u esti o n thi s way t o e ns ur e m ax im um f l ex ibi l i tyf o r the st at e j udi ci ary, whi chmay el ec t to a ddr es s an y o fthe th re e s ub-quest i ons w e hav e a l re ady i denti fi ed, o r m ay concl ud e that s om e o theri ssue al tog etherde te rm i nes the a pp ro pri at e an sw er . The cl er k o fthi s co urt w i l ltr ansm i t to the S upr eme Co ur t the a ppel l at e br i ef s an d the sh or t re c or d , an d atth e s ta te co u rt ’ s r eq u es t w ill t r a ns mi tthe ful lr e c o r d.

9- 29- 10