DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF KY. v. DAVIS (No. 06-666)
197 S. W. 3d 557, reversed and remanded.

Syllabus	Opinion [Souter]	Concurrence [Stevens]	Concurrence [Roberts]	Concurrence [Scalia]	Concurrence [Thomas]	Dissent [Kennedy]	Dissent [Alito]
HTML version PDF version	HTML version PDF version	HTML version PDF version	HTML version PDF version	HTML version PDF version	HTML version PDF version	HTML version PDF version	HTML version PDF version

553 U. S. ____ (2008)

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF KENTUCKY, et al.,
PETITIONERS v. GEORGE W. DAVIS et ux.

on writ of certiorari to the court of appeals ofkentucky

---

---

    Chief Justice Roberts, concurring in part.

    I join all but Part III–B of the opinion of the Court. In my view, the case is readily resolved by last Term’s decision in United Haulers Assn., Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority, 550 U. S. ___ (2007). A majority of the Court shares this view. That being the case, I see no need to proceed to the alternative analysis in Part III–B.