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