What About the Bar Exam After the 2020 Dust Settles?

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

Illinois law dean and professor Vikram David Amar comments on some of the questions commentators and analysts are, or will soon be, asking—specifically why we have bar exams for legal licensure, and, assuming we retain them, what they should look like going forward. Amar observes the limitations of the so-called diploma privilege advocated by some and suggests that states adopt greater interstate uniformity in their bar exams, shift toward more performance (as opposed to memorization) exams, and move away from being so time pressured.

Read More

Association for Accessible Medicines v. James

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Docket: 19-183

Opinion Date: September 14, 2020

Judge: Raymond Joseph Lohier, Jr.

Areas of Law: Tax Law

New York State appealed from the district court's consolidated judgments invalidating the State's Opioid Stewardship Act (OSA), which requires opioid manufacturers and distributors to make an annual payment to fund statewide opioid-related services but prohibits them from passing the costs of those payments through to their customers. The Second Circuit held that the OSA's opioid stewardship payment is a tax within the meaning of the Tax Injunction Act (TIA), and that the district court should have dismissed plaintiff's challenges to the payment under the TIA for lack of jurisdiction. After considering the factors in Entergy Nuclear Vt. Yankee, LLC v. Shumlin, 737 F.3d 228, 232–33 (2d Cir. 2013), and San Juan Cellular Telephone Co. v. Public Service Commission, 967 F.2d 683, 685 (1st Cir. 1992), the court concluded that the primary purpose of the opioid stewardship payment is to raise revenue, not to punish or regulate plaintiffs and other licensees who are required to make the payment. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgments, except insofar as they relate to the pass-through prohibition, which is not before the court.

Barrett Corp. v. Lembke

Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Citation: 2020 CO 73

Opinion Date: September 14, 2020

Judge: Hart

Areas of Law: Energy, Oil & Gas Law, Government & Administrative Law, Real Estate & Property Law, Tax Law

In 2015, the owners of a 13,000-acre tract of land known as 70 Ranch successfully petitioned to include their tract in a special district. After 70 Ranch was incorporated into the district, the district began taxing the leaseholders of subsurface mineral rights, Bill Barrett Corporation, Bonanza Creek Energy, Inc., and Noble Energy, Inc. for the oil and gas they produced at wellheads located on 70 Ranch. The Lessees, however, objected to being taxed, arguing the mineral interests they leased could not be included in the special district because neither they nor the owners of the mineral estates consented to inclusion, which they asserted was required by section 32-1-401(1)(a), C.R.S. (2019), of the Special District Act. The Colorado Supreme Court determined that section 401(1)(a) permitted the inclusion of real property covered by the statute into a special taxing district when (1) the inclusion occurred without notice to or consent by the property’s owners and (2) that property was not capable of being served by the district. The Court answered "no," however, 32-1-401(1)(a) required the assent of all of the surface property owners to an inclusion under that provision, and inclusion was only appropriate if the surface property could be served by the district. "Section 32-1-401(1)(a) does not require assent from owners of subsurface mineral estates because those mineral estates, while they are real property, are not territory. Thus, Lessees’ consent was not required for the inclusion of 70 Ranch in the special district." The Court therefore affirmed the court of appeals on alternate grounds.

Put-in-Bay v. Mathys

Court: Supreme Court of Ohio

Citation: 2020-Ohio-4421

Opinion Date: September 16, 2020

Judge: Stewart

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Tax Law, Transportation Law

The Supreme Court held that Section 858.01 of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Put-In-Bay does not impose an unconstitutional tax on motor vehicles. The Village filed separate criminal complaints against Defendants, who operated businesses that made motorized golf cars available for rent within the Village, for failing to pay the annual license fee on their golf carts. The trial court dismissed the criminal complaints on the basis that section 858.01 is for a similar purpose as the annual state license tax levied on the operation of motor vehicles under Ohio Rev. Code 4503.02 and the local government tax permitted by Ohio Rev. Code 4504.02 and 4504.06. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that section 858.01 was not preempted by state law and did not violate Ohio Const. art. XII, 5a. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the tax is a constitutional exercise of the municipality's right to tax; and (2) section 858.01 does not impose an unconstitutional tax.

International Paper Co. v. County of Isle of Wight

Court: Supreme Court of Virginia

Docket: 190542

Opinion Date: September 17, 2020

Judge: S. Bernard Goodwyn

Areas of Law: Tax Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the circuit court granting Isle of Wight County's motion to strike International Paper Company's application for correction of a machinery and tools tax assessment that International Paper claimed was nonuniform, invalid, and illegal, holding that the court erred in sustaining the County's motion to strike as to counts 4 and 5 regarding uniformity. International Paper owned a paper production facility in the County that utilized paper-making machinery for its manufacturing operations. International Paper filed an application for a correction of the County's "nonuniform, invalid & illegal" assessment of International Paper's machinery and tools taxes for tax year 2017. The refund action had five counts. After a bench trial, the County moved to strike International Paper's evidence and claims. The circuit court granted the motion to strike and dismissed the refund action with prejudice. The Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded this case for further proceedings, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in sustaining the County's motion to strike as to three counts regarding vested rights, separation of powers, and the County's alleged lack of statutory authority; but (2) the circuit court erred in sustaining the County's motion to strike as to two counts regarding uniformity.