Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Two updates on my earlier post on the results of today's Supreme Court certiorari conference:
1. In its order granting certiorari in Cuno v. DaimlerChrysler, Inc., 386 F.3d 738 (6th Cir. 2004) (04-1407, 04-1704, 04-1724), which held that Ohio's investment tax credit is unconstitutional because it grants preferential tax treatment to companies to expand within the state, the Court signaled that it may be considering disposing of the case on procedural grounds:
In addition to the questions presented by the petitions, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: Whether respondents have standing to challenge Ohio's investment tax credit, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §5733.33.
2. Press and blogosphere accounts of the cases granted certiorari today focus not on this important tax case but instead on Marshall v. Marshall (No. 04-1544), involving Anna Nicole Smith's appeal of her share of her 90-year old late husband's estate (originally set at $474 million and then reduced to zero). The case raises the weighty issue (pun intended) of whether the probate exception to diversity jurisdiction bars federal courts from interferring in state court settlements of a decedent's estate.
I am not the first to put these two cases together: see What Do Tax Breaks and Anna Nicole Smith Have in Common? (For press reports, see here, here, here, and here; for blog reports, see here, here, and here.)
Update: law.com story on Anna Nicole Smith and the Supreme Court