This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

U.S. Supreme Court,
Civil Litigation,
California Supreme Court

Jun. 2, 2017

'BNSF' Limits General PJx; Upland Fights Marijuana Taxes

Does a state provision meant to protect residents from new taxes apply when voters themselves initiate the tax? The California Supreme Court debates, and Adam Hofmann (Hanson Bridgett) explains. And, Cory Andrews (Washington Legal Foundation) discusses SCOTUS' latest enunciation of a strictly construed general personal jurisdiction doctrine


audio

This week's show regards two high court cases, one personal jurisdiction case rendered from the U.S. Supreme Court, and a taxation matter argued before California's seven supreme jurists.

Adam Hofmann (Hanson Bridgett) visits first to discuss the state matter, a suit involving election law and taxation, with the unusual quirk of having a city fighting against a tax measure that would have netted it revenue. The case, California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland asks whether a California constitutional provision meant to protect residents from new taxes applies when those new taxes would be created, not by a local governmental, but by residents themselves, through a voter initiative. Mr. Hofmann explains the overlapping issues at play here, in a case that will determine the power and reach of local initiatives that stand to levy new taxes.

Then we'll hear from Cory Andrews, of the Washington Legal Foundation, on the SCOTUS case BNSF Railway v. Tyrrell, which again emphasizes the strict modern approach to general personal jurisdiction that the Supreme Court has squarely endorsed since bellwether cases like Daimler AG v. Bauman. Mr. Andrews explains why the ruling, in which railway workers sued under a federal law meant to provide such employees adequate remedies, is a logical and necessary development of the general personal jurisdiction doctrine.

Don't forget CLE credit is available to listeners; find a short true/false test below.

#243998

Brian Cardile

Daily Journal Staff Writer
brian_cardile@dailyjournal.com

For reprint rights:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390

If you would like to purchase a copy of your Daily Journal photo, call (213) 229-5558.

Send a letter to the editor:

Email: letters@dailyjournal.com