skip navigation
search

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)

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

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

on writ of certiorari to the court of appeals ofkentucky


[May 19, 2008]

    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.