Source: http://blogbusinesslaw.com/tag/north-dakota/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 12:35:00+00:00

Document:
South Dakota has a state tax for sales of goods and services that are made by retailers of the state. Out-of-state retailers were making sales to customers in the state of South Dakota and not collecting and remitting sales tax in South Dakota. However, these retailers are allowed to do that based on the ruling made in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 and National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Ill., 386 U.S. 753. The state was worried they were losing funding due to out-of-state retailers not collecting and remitting the South Dakota’s sales tax. To solve this concern, South Dakota created a law that commanded out-of-state retailers who make more than 200 sales transactions and at least $100,000 in revenue from those sales to collect and remit sales tax as if they were located in South Dakota. Companies who met those requirements failed to follow the newly made law so the South Dakota legislature brought the issue to court.
Should the respondents have to register for licenses to collect and remit the sales tax regardless if they are physically present in the state or not?
South Dakota law is permitted to tax sales from sellers who are outside of that particular state as long as the seller collects at least $100,000 in sales revenue or more than 200 sales transactions.
The court derived its reasoning from other cases including Quill v. North Dakota and National Bella Hess v. Department of Revenue of Ill. The court explained how the physical presence rule in Quill v. North Dakota is “unsound and incorrect.” Since the internet has such a great impact on business, retailers who do business through the internet must pay taxes in that particular state of the sale. Therefore, the Quill v. North Dakota reasoning is no longer relevant.
Thomas is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2021.
This entry was posted in Blog Business Law, Student Posts and tagged North Dakota, Seton Hall University, South Dakota, Stillman School on October 24, 2018 by Victor N. Metallo, MAE, MBA, MLIS, JD.
California Law on Eggs Hurting the Economy?
A law passed on 2015 that eggs sold in California have to come from hen that have enough room for them to stretch in their cages. This may also be known as “free-ranged eggs”. The purpose of this is to not only let the hen live a better life but studies have found that not giving them the ideal way of living increases the chances of getting salmonella from the eggs that they produce.
This may sound good, however, bad news come with it. Firstly, consumers will have to expect prices of the eggs to rise. Secondly, there may be a shortage of eggs may occur as 90% of eggs come from places where it is not acceptable to sell according to the California Law.
Today, over a dozen states have filled a law suit directly to the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday (Dec.04, 2017) to block this law as it violates the U.S. Constitution’s interstate commerce clause and are pre-empted by federal law. Although, a similar case has been rejected 6 different times by 6 different states, Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley is confident in the new lawsuit as he has economic studies to back his case up. He has mentioned that California’s egg law has cost consumers nationwide up to $350 million annually as a result of higher egg prices.
States that are backing up this case include Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin.
Gen is a business information technology management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.
This entry was posted in Blog Business Law, Student Posts and tagged Gen Nagai, North Dakota, Seton Hall University, Supreme Court on December 8, 2017 by Victor N. Metallo, MAE, MBA, MLIS, JD.
Several states have statutes that make it a crime to refuse to take a breathalyzer if suspected of driving under the influence. Some states, like New Jersey, make refusal a civil offense. The High Court is reviewing statutes in North Dakota and Minnesota that make it a crime for people suspected of drunken driving to refuse to take alcohol tests. Drivers prosecuted under those laws claim they violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.
The justices questioned lawyers representing the states as to why police cannot be required to get a telephonic warrant every time they want a driver to take an alcohol test. “Justice Stephen Breyer pointed to statistics showing that it takes an average of only five minutes to get a warrant over the phone in Wyoming and 15 minutes to get one in Montana.” However, this may not be correct.
Telephonic warrants have also been the rule in New Jersey since 2009. Recently, the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed itself, reverting back to the federal standard requiring police to obtain a warrant after establishing they have probable cause. Under the more stringent standard of using telephonic warrants, police were complaining it took to long to reach a judge. Police also used consent forms they carried, causing an outcry from the defense bar that such a practice may lead to further abuses. Justice Anthony Kennedy said the states are asking for “an extraordinary exception” to the warrant rule by making it a crime for drivers to assert their constitutional rights.
The problem for the states is that without the threat of a refusal penalty, the only proof available at trial as to whether someone was intoxicated while driving is the observations made by police. Observations, however, cannot prove blood alcohol level.
This entry was posted in Blog Business Law, Business Law Blogs and tagged Justice Anthony Kennedy, Justice Stephen Breyer, Kathryn Keena, North Dakota on April 20, 2016 by Victor N. Metallo, MAE, MBA, MLIS, JD.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.