Source: https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/2016/06/delaware-asks-us-supreme-court-to-decide-escheat-d
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 02:58:18+00:00

Document:
A limited universe of businesses will be directly impacted by a decision concerning where to escheat an official check. But any general guidance that the Court provides on unclaimed property could have an indirect effect on all types of holders. For example, one important question that the Court could answer is whether its original jurisdiction decisions are binding on disputes between private parties and states, or just disputes between states.7 To the extent the original jurisdiction decisions (and the priority rules they contain) extend to disputes involving private parties, holders could contest states’ claims to property and the scope of state audits.
Docket No. 22O145. This filing in the United States Supreme Court is the latest in a round of litigation addressing this dispute. Previously, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin sued Delaware in federal district court. Treasury Dep’t of the Commonwealth v. Delaware State Escheator David Gregor, Case 1:16-cv-00351-JEJ, Complaint (M.D. Pa. Feb. 26, 2016); Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. Delaware State Escheator David Gregor, Case No. 16-cv-281, Complaint (W.D. Wis. Apr. 27, 2016).
Texas v. New Jersey, 379 U.S. 674 (1965).
Letter from David M. Gregor to Brian Munley (Sept. 29, 2015).
See, e.g., Treasury Dep’t of the Commonwealth v. Delaware State Escheator David Gregor, Case 1:16-cv-00351-JEJ, Complaint ¶¶ 62–68 (Feb. 26, 2016).
At least two states (Delaware and New Jersey) have argued that the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction decisions only govern disputes between states, so cannot be invoked by private parties.
Id; see also Arizona v. New Mexico, 425 U.S. 794 (1976).
See Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Pennsylvania, 368 U.S. 71 (1961).
See Oregon ex rel. Dep’t of Transportation v. Heavy Vehicle Electronic License Plate, Inc., 157 F. Supp. 2d 1158, 1164 (D. Ore. 2001) (“What constitutes ‘core sovereign interests’” for original jurisdiction purposes “is subject to interpretation, but some issues are clearly included in that phrase, such as . . . interstate escheat . . . .”).

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