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

---

---

    Justice Alito, dissenting.

    I proceed in this case, as I did in United Haulers Assn., Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority, 550 U. S. ___, ___ (2007) (dissenting opinion), on the assumption that the Court’s established dormant Commerce Clause precedents should be followed, and on that assumption, I entirely agree with and join Justice Kennedy’s dissent.