This HTML5 document contains 108 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Namespace Prefixes

Prefix	IRI
n9	https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/
dcterms	http://purl.org/dc/terms/
yago-res	http://yago-knowledge.org/resource/
dbo	http://dbpedia.org/ontology/
foaf	http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
n17	https://global.dbpedia.org/id/
yago	http://dbpedia.org/class/yago/
dbt	http://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:
rdfs	http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
freebase	http://rdf.freebase.com/ns/
n21	http://dbpedia.org/property/concurrence/
n4	https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/
n23	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/504/298/
rdf	http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
owl	http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
n18	https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/504/
wikipedia-en	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
dbp	http://dbpedia.org/property/
dbc	http://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:
prov	http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#
xsdh	http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
wikidata	http://www.wikidata.org/entity/
n13	http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep504/usrep504298/
dbr	http://dbpedia.org/resource/

Statements

Subject Item

dbr:Quill_Corp._v._North_Dakota

rdf:type

wikidata:Q2334719 yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100 yago:Event100029378 yago:Happening107283608 yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntity yago:Case107308889 dbo:UnitOfWork owl:Thing dbo:LegalCase dbo:Case dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase yago:WikicatUnitedStatesSupremeCourtCases yago:Abstraction100002137

rdfs:label

Quill Corp. v. North Dakota

rdfs:comment

Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court ruling, since overturned, concerning use tax. The decision effectively prevented states from collecting any sales tax from retail purchases made over the Internet or other e-Commerce route unless the seller had a physical presence in the state. The ruling was based on the Dormant Commerce Clause, preventing states from interfering with interstate commerce unless authorized by the United States Congress. The case resulted from an attempt by North Dakota seeking to collect sales tax on licensed computer software offered by the Quill Corporation, an office supply retailer with no North Dakota presence, that allowed users to place orders directly with Quill.

foaf:name

Quill Corporation, Petitioner v. North Dakota by and through its Tax Commissioner,Heidi Heitkamp

dcterms:subject

dbc:United_States_Constitution_Article_One_case_law dbc:1992_in_United_States_case_law dbc:United_States_taxation_and_revenue_case_law dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Rehnquist_Court dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:Legal_history_of_North_Dakota dbc:Taxation_in_North_Dakota dbc:E-commerce_in_the_United_States dbc:United_States_Dormant_Commerce_Clause_case_law

dbo:wikiPageID

11587786

dbo:wikiPageRevisionID

1123780264

dbo:wikiPageWikiLink

dbr:Stare_decisis dbr:Office_supply dbr:Anthony_Kennedy dbr:Use_tax dbr:IP_address dbr:North_Dakota dbc:United_States_Constitution_Article_One_case_law dbr:Complete_Auto_Transit,_Inc._v._Brady dbr:Direct_Marketing_Ass'n_v._Brohl dbr:Heidi_Heitkamp dbc:United_States_taxation_and_revenue_case_law dbr:L._Ed._2d dbr:Computer_software dbr:Commerce_Clause dbc:1992_in_United_States_case_law dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Rehnquist_Court dbr:Certiorari dbr:South_Dakota_v._Wayfair,_Inc. dbr:North_Dakota_Supreme_Court dbr:Due_process dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbr:National_Bellas_Hess_v._Illinois dbr:North_Dakota_Office_of_State_Tax_Commissioner dbr:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States dbr:Sales_taxes_in_the_United_States dbc:Legal_history_of_North_Dakota dbc:United_States_Dormant_Commerce_Clause_case_law dbc:Taxation_in_North_Dakota dbr:United_States_Congress dbr:Retailer dbr:Streamlined_Sales_Tax_Project dbr:Amazon.com dbr:Dormant_Commerce_Clause dbc:E-commerce_in_the_United_States dbr:Quill_Corporation dbr:Floppy_disk dbr:U.S._LEXIS

dbo:wikiPageExternalLink

n4:91-194 n13:usrep504298.pdf n18:298.html n9:91-0194.ZS.html n23:

owl:sameAs

n17:4u1xK yago-res:Quill_Corp._v._North_Dakota wikidata:Q7271983 freebase:m.02rkg7s

dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate

dbt:Ussc dbt:USArticleI dbt:Infobox_SCOTUS_case dbt:Caselaw_source dbt:Rp dbt:Reflist dbt:'

dbp:joinmajority

unanimous court ; Rehnquist, Blackmun, O'Connor, Souter

dbp:lawsapplied

dbr:Commerce_Clause

dbp:oyez

n4:91-194

dbp:parallelcitations

172800.0

dbp:uspage

298

dbp:usvol

504

dbp:arguedate

0001-01-22

dbp:argueyear

1992

dbp:case

Quill Corp. v. North Dakota,

dbp:decidedate

0001-05-26

dbp:decideyear

1992

dbp:findlaw

n18:298.html

dbp:fullname

Quill Corporation, Petitioner v. North Dakota by and through its Tax Commissioner, Heidi Heitkamp

dbp:holding

The lack of a physical nexus in a state is sufficient grounds to exempt a corporation from having to pay sales and use taxes to a state.

dbp:justia

n23:

dbp:litigants

Quill Corp. v. North Dakota

dbp:majority

Stevens

dbp:loc

n13:usrep504298.pdf

dbo:abstract

Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court ruling, since overturned, concerning use tax. The decision effectively prevented states from collecting any sales tax from retail purchases made over the Internet or other e-Commerce route unless the seller had a physical presence in the state. The ruling was based on the Dormant Commerce Clause, preventing states from interfering with interstate commerce unless authorized by the United States Congress. The case resulted from an attempt by North Dakota seeking to collect sales tax on licensed computer software offered by the Quill Corporation, an office supply retailer with no North Dakota presence, that allowed users to place orders directly with Quill. Quill modified an earlier court decision, National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Illinois, which dealt with a state imposing the duty of use tax collection on a mail order reseller. The decision in Quill has been a point of contention for states as e-Commerce had grown greatly during the 21st century. Spurred by Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurrence in Direct Marketing Ass'n v. Brohl, which spoke to a review of Quill, several states passed "kill Quill" laws to bring such a review to the Supreme Court. In the first such challenge, South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., heard in the 2018 term, the Court found that the physical presence rule defined by Quill was "unsound and incorrect", and overturned both Quill and the remaining portions of National Bellas Hess.

dbp:concurrence

Scalia

n21:dissent

White

dbp:cornell

n9:91-0194.ZS.html

dbp:joinconcurrence

Kennedy, Thomas

dbp:overruled

South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.

dbp:overturnedPreviousCase

National Bellas Hess v. Illinois

prov:wasDerivedFrom

wikipedia-en:Quill_Corp._v._North_Dakota?oldid=1123780264&ns=0

dbo:wikiPageLength

12357

foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf

wikipedia-en:Quill_Corp._v._North_Dakota