row_id int64 0 363k | sentence stringlengths 20 1.98k | case_title stringlengths 31 132 | citation stringclasses 917
values | docket_number stringlengths 15 19 | source_field stringclasses 2
values | court stringclasses 0
values | year int64 2.01k 2.03k | source_file stringclasses 0
values | Predicted_Label stringclasses 6
values | source stringclasses 21
values | date_decided stringdate 2005-01-11 00:00:00 2025-06-30 00:00:00 ⌀ | url stringlengths 50 57 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2005 LOCKHART V. | Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005) | 546 U.S. 142 (2005) | Docket No. 04-881 | syllabus | null | 2,005 | null | Others | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/142/ |
4 | Petitioner sued, arguing that the offset was barred by the 10-year statute of limitations of the Debt Collection Act of 1982, 31 U. | Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005) | 546 U.S. 142 (2005) | Docket No. 04-881 | syllabus | null | 2,005 | null | Facts | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/142/ |
8 | In 1996, the Debt Collection Improvement Act subjected Social Security benefits to offset, “[n]otwithstanding [§407],” 31 U. | Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005) | 546 U.S. 142 (2005) | Docket No. 04-881 | syllabus | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/142/ |
12 | Pp. 3–5. (a) The Debt Collection Improvement Act makes Social Security benefits subject to offset, providing the sort of express reference that §407(b) says is necessary to supersede the anti-attachment provision. | Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005) | 546 U.S. 142 (2005) | Docket No. 04-881 | syllabus | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/142/ |
16 | Pp. 3–4. (c) Though the Debt Collection Improvement Act retained the Debt Collection Act’s general 10-year bar on offset authority, the Higher Education Technical Amendments retain their effect as a limited exception to the Debt Collection Act time bar in the student loan context. | Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005) | 546 U.S. 142 (2005) | Docket No. 04-881 | syllabus | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/142/ |
20 | O’Connor, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. | Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005) | 546 U.S. 142 (2005) | Docket No. 04-881 | syllabus | null | 2,005 | null | Others | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/142/ |
24 | S. ____ (2005) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NO. 04-881 JAMES LOCKHART, PETITIONER v. | Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005) | 546 U.S. 142 (2005) | Docket No. 04-881 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Others | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/142/ |
28 | These loans were eventually reassigned to the Department of Education, which certified the debt to the Department of the Treasury through the Treasury Offset Program. | Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005) | 546 U.S. 142 (2005) | Docket No. 04-881 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Facts | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/142/ |
32 | We granted certiorari, 544 U. | Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005) | 546 U.S. 142 (2005) | Docket No. 04-881 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Others | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/142/ |
36 | C. §3711(a), an agency head can collect an outstanding debt “by administrative offset.” §3716(a). | Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005) | 546 U.S. 142 (2005) | Docket No. 04-881 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/142/ |
40 | In 1991, however, the Higher Education Technical Amendments, 105 Stat. 123, sweepingly eliminated time limitations as to certain loans: “Notwithstanding any other provision of statute . . . no limitation shall terminate the period within which suit may be filed, a judgment may be enforced, or an offset, garnishment, or other action initiated or taken,” 20 U. | Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005) | 546 U.S. 142 (2005) | Docket No. 04-881 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/142/ |
44 | C. §3716(c)(3)(A)(i). | Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005) | 546 U.S. 142 (2005) | Docket No. 04-881 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/142/ |
48 | We need not decide the effect of express-reference provisions such as §407(b) to resolve this case. | Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005) | 546 U.S. 142 (2005) | Docket No. 04-881 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/142/ |
52 | Therefore, petitioner continues, the Higher Education Technical Amendments’ abrogation of time limits in 1991 only applies to then-valid means of debt collection. | Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005) | 546 U.S. 142 (2005) | Docket No. 04-881 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/142/ |
56 | III Nor does the Debt Collection Improvement Act’s 1996 recodification of the Debt Collection Act help petitioner. | Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005) | 546 U.S. 142 (2005) | Docket No. 04-881 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/142/ |
60 | Finally, we decline to read any meaning into the failed 2004 effort to amend the Debt Collection Act to explicitly authorize offset of debts over 10 years old. | Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005) | 546 U.S. 142 (2005) | Docket No. 04-881 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Conclusion | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/142/ |
64 | In any event, it is unclear what meaning we could read into this effort even if we were inclined to do so, as the failed amendment—which was not limited to offsets against Social Security benefits—would have had a different effect than the interpretation we advance today. | Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005) | 546 U.S. 142 (2005) | Docket No. 04-881 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 7, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/142/ |
68 | RICHEY on petition for writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit No. 05–101. | Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (2005) | 546 U.S. 74 (2005) | Docket No. 05-101 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Facts | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 28, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/74/ |
72 | Evidence showed that respondent set fire to the apartment of his neighbor, Hope Collins, in an attempt to kill his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend, who were spending the night together in the apartment below. | Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (2005) | 546 U.S. 74 (2005) | Docket No. 05-101 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Facts | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 28, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/74/ |
76 | Respondent did not contest this forensic evidence at trial because his retained arson expert had reported that the State’s evidence conclusively established arson. | Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (2005) | 546 U.S. 74 (2005) | Docket No. 05-101 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Facts | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 28, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/74/ |
80 | The state trial court denied his request for an evidentiary hearing and denied relief on all claims, and the state appellate court affirmed. | Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (2005) | 546 U.S. 74 (2005) | Docket No. 05-101 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Facts | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 28, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/74/ |
84 | First, that transferred intent was not a permissible theory for aggravated felony murder under Ohio law, and that the evidence of direct intent was constitutionally insufficient to support conviction. | Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (2005) | 546 U.S. 74 (2005) | Docket No. 05-101 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 28, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/74/ |
88 | I The Sixth Circuit erred in holding that the doctrine of transferred intent was inapplicable to aggravated felony murder for the version of Ohio Rev. | Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (2005) | 546 U.S. 74 (2005) | Docket No. 05-101 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Issue | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 28, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/74/ |
92 | Richey, 64 Ohio St. 3d 353, 364, 595 N. | Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (2005) | 546 U.S. 74 (2005) | Docket No. 05-101 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 28, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/74/ |
96 | We have repeatedly held that a state court’s interpretation of state law, including one announced on direct appeal of the challenged conviction, binds a federal court sitting in habeas corpus. | Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (2005) | 546 U.S. 74 (2005) | Docket No. 05-101 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 28, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/74/ |
100 | S. 347, 352 (1964), in violation of the Due Process Clause. 395 F. 3d, at 677 (citing United States v. | Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (2005) | 546 U.S. 74 (2005) | Docket No. 05-101 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 28, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/74/ |
104 | United States, 522 U. | Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (2005) | 546 U.S. 74 (2005) | Docket No. 05-101 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Others | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 28, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/74/ |
108 | Code Ann. §2903.01(D) (Anderson 1982) (emphasis added). | Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (2005) | 546 U.S. 74 (2005) | Docket No. 05-101 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 28, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/74/ |
112 | E. 2d 1294, 1305 (1988) (citing Wareham v. | Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (2005) | 546 U.S. 74 (2005) | Docket No. 05-101 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 28, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/74/ |
116 | The foregoing provision was in effect at the time of respondent’s crime in 1986. | Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (2005) | 546 U.S. 74 (2005) | Docket No. 05-101 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Facts | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 28, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/74/ |
120 | Phillips, 74 Ohio St. 3d 72, 100, 656 N. | Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (2005) | 546 U.S. 74 (2005) | Docket No. 05-101 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 28, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/74/ |
124 | It was not inferred from the dangerousness of the arson; it was shown to be the purpose of the arson. | Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (2005) | 546 U.S. 74 (2005) | Docket No. 05-101 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 28, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/74/ |
128 | Lanier, supra; see also Marks v. | Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (2005) | 546 U.S. 74 (2005) | Docket No. 05-101 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 28, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/74/ |
132 | As petitioner contends, the Sixth Circuit erred in its adjudication of this claim by relying on evidence that was not properly presented to the state habeas courts without first determining (1) whether respondent was at fault for failing to develop the factual bases for his claims in state court, see Williams v. | Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (2005) | 546 U.S. 74 (2005) | Docket No. 05-101 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Issue | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 28, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/74/ |
136 | Compare App. to Pet. for Cert., 347a, with 395 F. 3d, at 683. | Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (2005) | 546 U.S. 74 (2005) | Docket No. 05-101 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 28, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/74/ |
140 | Respondent, however, contends that the State failed to preserve its objection to the Sixth Circuit’s reliance on evidence not presented in state court by failing to raise this argument properly before the Sixth Circuit. | Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (2005) | 546 U.S. 74 (2005) | Docket No. 05-101 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Issue | supreme_cases_2005.json | November 28, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/74/ |
144 | SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2005 WAGNON V. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | syllabus | null | 2,005 | null | Others | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
148 | The station is meant to accommodate reservation traffic, including patrons driving to the casino the Nation owns and operates there. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | syllabus | null | 2,005 | null | Facts | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
152 | Granting the State summary judgment, the District Court determined that the balance of state, federal, and tribal interests tilted in favor of the State under the test set forth in White Mountain Apache Tribe v. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | syllabus | null | 2,005 | null | Facts | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
156 | The Bracker interest-balancing test does not apply to a tax that results from an off-reservation transaction between non-Indians. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | syllabus | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
160 | S. 450, 458 (emphasis added). | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | syllabus | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
164 | See, e.g., Central Machinery Co. v. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | syllabus | null | 2,005 | null | Others | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
168 | Such “dispositive language” from the state legislature is determinative of who bears a state excise tax’s legal incidence. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | syllabus | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
172 | Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 266 Kan. 464, 970 P. 2d 60, distinguished. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | syllabus | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
176 | The Nation’s theory that the existence of statutory deductions for certain postreceipt transactions make it impossible for a distributor to calculate its ultimate tax liability without knowing whether, where, and to whom the fuel is ultimately sold or delivered suffers from several conceptual defects. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | syllabus | null | 2,005 | null | Issue | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
180 | It has never been applied where, as here, a state tax imposed on a non-Indian arises from a transaction occurring off the reservation. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | syllabus | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
184 | The Court has taken an altogether different course, by contrast, when a State asserts its taxing authority outside of Indian Country. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | syllabus | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
188 | In these circumstances, Bracker is inapplicable. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | syllabus | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
192 | This is ultimately a complaint about the state tax’s downstream economic consequences. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | syllabus | null | 2,005 | null | Issue | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
196 | Nor would the Court’s analysis change if legal significance were accorded the Nation’s decision to label a portion of its gas station’s revenues as tax proceeds. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | syllabus | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
200 | While Kansas’ tax pays for roads and bridges on the Nation’s reservation, including the main highway used by casino patrons, Kansas offers no such services to the several States or the Federal Government. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | syllabus | null | 2,005 | null | Facts | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
204 | J., and Stevens, O’Connor, Scalia, Souter, and Breyer, JJ., joined. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | syllabus | null | 2,005 | null | Others | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
208 | S. ____ (2005) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NO. 04-631 JOAN WAGNON, SECRETARY, KANSAS DEPART- MENT OF REVENUE, PETITIONER v. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Others | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
212 | The Nation maintains that this application of the Kansas motor fuel tax is an impermissible affront to its sovereignty. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Issue | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
216 | Accordingly, we reverse. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Conclusion | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
220 | Seventy-three percent of the station’s fuel sales are made to casino patrons, while 11 percent of the station’s fuel sales are made to persons who live or work on the reservation. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Facts | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
224 | Supp.),[Footnote 1] and pass along the cost of that tax to their customers, including the Nation.[Footnote 2] The Nation sells its fuel within 2 cents per gallon of the prevailing market price. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Facts | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
228 | The Nation’s fuel tax generates approximately $300,000 annually, funds that the Nation uses for “ ‘constructing and maintaining roads, bridges and rights-of-way located on or near the Reservation,’ ” including the access road between the state-funded highway and the casino. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Facts | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
232 | The court reached this determination because “it is undisputed that the legal incidence of the tax is directed off-reservation at the fuel distributors,” Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation v. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
236 | It determined that, under Bracker, the balance of state, federal, and tribal interests favored the Tribe. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
240 | II Although we granted certiorari to determine whether Kansas may tax a non-Indian distributor’s off-reservation receipt of fuel without being subject to the Bracker interest-balancing test, Pet. for Cert. i, the Nation maintains that Kansas’ “tax is imposed not on the off-reservation receipt of fuel, but on its on-reservation sale and delivery,” Brief for Respondent 11 (emphasis in original). | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Facts | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
244 | S. 450, 458 (1995) (emphasis added), and that the States are categorically barred from placing the legal incidence of an excise tax “on a tribe or on tribal members for sales made inside Indian country” without congressional authorization, id., at 459 (emphasis added). | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
248 | Arizona Tax Comm’n, 448 U. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Others | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
252 | Brief for Respondent 15. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Others | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
256 | We have suggested that such “dispositive language” from the state legislature is determinative of who bears the legal incidence of a state excise tax. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
260 | S. 9, 11 (1985) (per curiam), we would nonetheless conclude that the legal incidence of the tax is on the distributor. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
264 | In sum, the legal incidence of the Kansas motor fuel tax is on the distributor. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
268 | Supp. 2d 1291, 1294 (Kan. 2004) (“Under the Kansas statutory scheme, the legal incidence of the state’s fuel tax falls on the ‘distributor of first receipt’ of such fuel”); Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri v. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
272 | Heinemann, Office of Administrative Appeals, to Mark Burghart, Written Final Determination in Request for Informal Conference for Reconsideration of Agency Action, Davies Oil Co., Inc., Docket No. 01–970 (Jan. 3, 2002) (hereinafter Kansas Dept. of Revenue Letter) (“The legal incidence of the Kansas fuel tax rests with Davies, the distributor, who is up-stream from Nation, the retailer”). | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Facts | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
276 | And, under the United States’ view, so long as the Kansas Supreme Court’s “ ‘definitive determination as to the operating incidence’ ” of its fuel tax is “ ‘consistent with the statute’s reasonable interpretation,’ ” it should be “ ‘deemed conclusive.’ ” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 10 (quoting Gurley v. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
280 | The Kansas Supreme Court determined that the station owners had standing to challenge the tax because the statute provided that the distributor was entitled to “ ‘charge and collect such tax . . . as a part of the selling price.’ ” Kaul, supra, at 474, 970 P. 2d, at 67 (quoting Kan. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
284 | Kaul does not foreclose our determination that the distributor bears the legal incidence of the Kansas motor fuel tax. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
288 | Id., at 473, 970 P. 2d, at 66 (identifying provisions that were repealed in 1998 as being “in effect during the period relevant to this case”); id., at 474, 970 P. 2d, at 67 (noting that a “critical statute” to its holding was the 1995 version of §79–3409, which was amended in 1998). | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Facts | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
292 | Notably, however, the Nation presented a starkly different interpretation of the statute in the proceedings before the Court of Appeals, arguing that “[t]he balancing test is appropriate even though the legal incidence of the tax is imposed on the Nation’s non-Indian distributor and is triggered by the distributor’s receipt of fuel outside the reservation.” Appellant’s Reply Brief in No. 03–3218 (CA10), p. 3 (emphasis added); see also 241 F. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Facts | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
296 | As written, the Kansas fuel tax provisions state that “the incidence of this tax is imposed on the distributor of the first receipt of the motor fuel and such taxes shall be paid but once. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
300 | That section provides: “[E]very distributor, manufacturer, importer, exporter or retailer of motor-vehicle fuels or special fuels, on or before the 25th day of each month, shall render to the director . . . a report certified to be true and correct showing the number of gallons of motor-vehicle fuels or special fuels received by such distributor, manufacturer, importer, exporter or retailer during the preceding calendar month . . . . | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
304 | It contends that what is taxed is not the distributors’ (off-reservation) receipt of the fuel, but rather the distributors’ use, sale, or delivery of the motor fuel—in this case, the distributors’ (on-reservation) sale or delivery to the Nation. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
308 | Section 79–3408(a) must be read in conjunction with subsection (c), which specifies that “the incidence of this tax is imposed on the distributor of the first receipt of the motor fuel and such taxes shall be paid but once.” (Emphasis added.) The identity of the single, taxable event is revealed in the very next sentence of subsection (c), which provides that “[s]uch tax shall be computed on all . . . fuels received by each distributor.” (Emphasis added.) In short, the “use, sale or delivery” that triggers tax liability is the sale or delivery of the fuel to the distributor. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
312 | Section 79–3408(d) permits distributors to obtain deductions from the Kansas motor fuel tax for certain postreceipt transactions, such as sale or delivery of fuel for export from the State and sale or delivery of fuel to the United States. §§79–3408(d)(1)–(2). | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
316 | First, under Kansas law, a distributor must pay the tax even for fuel that sits in its inventory—fuel that is not (or at least has not yet been) used, sold, or delivered by the distributor.[Footnote 3] But the Nation’s interpretation presumes that the tax is owed only on a distributor’s postreceipt use, sale, or delivery of fuel. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
320 | C. §1 (2000 ed. and Supp. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Others | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
324 | Finally, the Nation contends that its interpretation of the statute is supported by Kan. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Facts | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
328 | This section illustrates that a distributor pays taxes for fuel in its possession that it has not delivered or sold, and is only entitled to the refund described in this section for tax it has already paid on fuel that is subsequently destroyed. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
332 | The Bracker interest-balancing test has never been applied where, as here, the State asserts its taxing authority over non-Indians off the reservation. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
336 | See Bracker, supra (motor carrier license and use fuel taxes imposed on on-reservation logging and hauling operations by non-Indian contractor); Department of Taxation and Finance of N. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
340 | Bureau of Revenue of N. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Others | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
344 | S. 160 (tax imposed on on-reservation sale of farm machinery to Tribe). | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
348 | S. 685 (1965) (gross proceeds tax imposed on non-Indian retailer on Navajo Indian Reservation); Thomas v. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
352 | Sac and Fox Nation, 508 U. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Others | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
356 | We have further explained that the doctrine of tribal sovereignty, which has a “significant geographical component,” Bracker, supra, at 151, requires us to “revers[e]” the “ ‘general rule’ ” that “ ‘exemptions from tax laws should . . . be clearly expressed.’ ” Sac and Fox, supra, at 124 (quoting McClanahan, supra, at 176). | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
360 | We have taken an altogether different course, by contrast, when a State asserts its taxing authority outside of Indian Country. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
364 | If a State may apply a nondiscriminatory tax to Indians who have gone beyond the boundaries of the reservation, then it follows that it may apply a nondiscriminatory tax where, as here, the tax is imposed on non-Indians as a result of an off-reservation transaction. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
368 | The application of the interest-balancing test to the Kansas motor fuel tax is not only inconsistent with the special geographic sovereignty concerns that gave rise to that test, but also with our efforts to establish “bright-line standard[s]” in the context of tax administration. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
372 | S. 251, 267–268 (1992). | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Others | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
376 | Such an expansion of the application of the Bracker test is not supported by our cases. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
380 | Given that the Nation sells gas at prevailing market rates, its decision to impose a tax should have no effect on its net revenues from the operation of the station; it should not matter whether those revenues are labeled “profits” or “tax proceeds.” The Nation merely seeks to increase those revenues by purchasing untaxed fuel. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
384 | S. 217, 220 (1959), merely because the result of imposing its taxes will be to deprive the Tribes of revenues which they currently are receiving”). | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Rule/Law/Holding | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
388 | Economic burdens on the competing sovereign . . . do not alter the concurrent nature of the taxing authority”).[Footnote 6] B Finally, the Nation contends that the Kansas motor fuel tax is invalid notwithstanding the inapplicability of the interest-balancing test, because it “exempts from taxation fuel sold or delivered to all other sovereigns,” and is therefore impermissibly discriminatory. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Analysis | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
392 | While Kansas uses the proceeds from its fuel tax to pay for a significant portion of the costs of maintaining the roads and bridges on the Nation’s reservation, including the main highway used by the Nation’s casino patrons, Kansas offers no such services to the several States or the Federal Government. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Facts | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
396 | The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. | Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | 546 U.S. 95 (2005) | Docket No. 04-631 | opinion | null | 2,005 | null | Conclusion | supreme_cases_2005.json | December 6, 2005 | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/95/ |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.