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]

    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.