Not surprisingly, proponents and opponents disagree about the economic costs and benefits of a state providing MPIs. Proponents foresee movie makers hiring locals for a variety of jobs, eventually culminating in a ‘camera ready” local movie-making staff that an ever-increasing number of movie makers can hire in the future. Skeptics argue that the highly-paid staff (who can make over $1 million per movie) take most of their pay home to California or New York, after traveling from state to state to make movies, based on a “race to the bottom” in which states compete to offer the most/best incentives. In contrast, opponents argue that the local hirees are often short-term extras and lower-paid support staff. While the “traveling” elite movie-making staff does spend their per diem money at restaurants, stay at local hotels, and probably buys some local goods and services, (as mentioned) some state offer sales and lodging tax reductions or exemptions, as well.

Proponents argue that goodwill accrues from hosting a (major) movie production. Actors may praise the local site at promotional appearances for the movie, or send positive tweets. Georgia adds a 10% bonus to its incentive if the seal of the State of Georgia appears prominently in the movie, and Texas reserves the right to clawback incentives if a movie portrays Texas or Texans in a negative way. In theory, people attracted by the movie (including, possibly, out-of-state tourists according to one pro-MPI study) will spend (more) money, too. Thus, there is a classic (if somewhat controversial) “multiplier” effect from the MPI-induced money spent. (Movie folks eat at expensive restaurants, waiters get more money, waiters buy new tires for their cars, tire company hire more staff, etc.)  [Movie industry saves the lives of the waiters' families...] The discrepancy in dollar amounts can be extreme — Ernst & Young studies of the film credits asserted $1.50 in generated state and local revenue for each dollar spent on film tax credits in New Mexico and $1.90 per dollar spent in New York, whereas a 2008 study of the Massachusetts film credit(s) showed only 16 cents for every dollar spent. Independent studies of MPIs estimated that states had to offset 72-93 cents of every subsidy dollar with tax increases or service cuts, especially in the majority of states that have to operate on balanced budgets. (Tannenwald, pp. 5-6, 16)

The report listed many reasons why film subsidies don’t work, such as the overly generous nature of the subsidy & the need to continue offering them (to compete with other states); the creation of lucrative non-resident jobs, but temporary, low-paid in-state jobs; the possibility that the projects may have taken place without subsidies; and the aforementioned likelihood that the associated economic impact might be less than the MPIs that were given. In addition, the report listed three specific critique of the Ernst & Young methodology: exaggerated impact of tourism, double counting, and lack of transparency (Tannenwald, at p.11).

In a March, 2012 report on the film industry in Northeast Ohio & Ohio, Candi Clouse calculated a return on investment (ROI) of $1.20 for each dollar the state spent on the Ohio Motion Picture Tax Credit. She tallied a total of $34,339,647 ($10,032,021 in indirect benefits and $24,307,626 in induced benefits) versus $28,648,441 (credit value), assuming all of the projects would have been produced elsewhere, if not for the credit. (Clouse, at p. 28)

References

Steve Wells and Mark Ross. “One for the Money, Two for the Show…” An Update on State Tax Incentives for the Film Industry. 30 Journal of State Taxation 21 (July/Aug., 2013).

Steve Wells and Mark Ross. “One for the Money, Two for the Show…” Take Two. 30 Journal of State Taxation 33 (March/April 2013).

Incentive Spark Business. 53(8) SHOOT 18 (9/21/12).

Candi Clouse. Analysis and Economic Impact of the Film Industry in Northeast Ohio & Ohio. (March, 2012).

Demand for Ohio Film Credits Grow. Toledo Business Journal 8 (July, 2011).

Movie Production Incentives: Blockbuster Support for Lackluster Policy. (Tax Foundation, Special Report # 173, Jan., 2010).

Robert Tannenwald. State Film Subsidies: Not Much Bang for Too Many Bucks. (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Nov. 17, 2010).

Navjeet K Bal. A Report on the Massachusetts Film Industry Tax Incentives (Jan., 2011).

Navjeet K Bal. A Report on the Massachusetts Film Industry Tax Incentives (March, 2008).

Websites

Ohio Film Office

Greater Cleveland Film Commission

Interactive State Maps (links to several such maps– the opening “map” just has a dollar bill imposed on the U.S. map)

Each business day Fact Tank covers one or two current news stories and discusses them in relation to data gathered by the PEW Research Center or others. On June 4, there was a story on the decline of gun ownership. The PEW story noted that the decline was found by three surveys, a Pew Research Center survey, the General Social Survey, and a Gallup’s survey. The story, linking to to the WSJ Blog post “Guns Present Polling Conundrum,” noted that researchers have trouble determining gun ownership. This is just one example of how data and data collection are central to Fact Tank stories.

Another example is the story about print vs. digital books. This story discussed information from a survey and a follow-up focus group. The survey found that 81% of the parents felt that it was “very important” for their children to read print books. The story went on to discuss information gathered from parents participating in a focus group that discussed why it was important to expose children to print books. Some wanted their children to have the same reading experience they had as a child. Others noted that children’s books often have tactile elements that cannot be reproduced in a digital book. Fact Tank stories discuss different types of data collected by various methods.

Stories cover a wide range of topics — gay marriage, marijuana use, the economic recovery, Guantanamo, and Prime Minister Erdogan. Data comes mainly from the PEW Research Center, but other sources include Gallup, IMF World Economic Outlook Database, and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. The breadth of stories and data sources make Fact Tank a great resource for researchers looking for data about current events. Students looking for note topics will also find Fact Tank useful to find current legal/social/policy issues with known related data. Fact Tank is good place for either researcher to begin their research.

To date, the ICTY has acquitted slightly over 11% (18/161) of its defendants, with an additional 22% (36/161) of actions having been terminated. Sixty-nine (69) people have been sentenced, and 25 trails are ongoing. (The ICTY transferred 13 cases to national courts.) The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), which is even closer to finishing its United Nations mandate, has acquitted 16% (12/75) of the people it tried. Forty-six (46) people have been sentenced, and 17 cases are under appeal.

The U.N. Security Council has endorsed the ICTY’s plan to complete its trials by July, 2016. The ICTR expects to complete its appeals by the end of 2014. The cases of six of nine ICTR fugitives will be transferred to Rwanda. Three of the fugitives will be pursued by the International Residual Mechanism (IRM) for the ICTR, established on July 2, 2012, with a (renewable) four year mandate. Similarly, and IRM for the ICTY will commence on July 1, 2013, to wind down ICTY proceedings. At least the ICTY IRM will not have to hunt down any fugitives.

Selected, Recent Articles

Guido Acquaviva. Was a Residual Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals Really Necessary? 9 J. Int’l Crim. Just. 789 (2011).

Ruth Frolich. Introductory Note to the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1966: International Residual Mechanism for ICTY and ICTR. 50 Int’l legal Materials 323 (2011).

Brigitte Benoit Landale and Huw Llewellyn. The International Residual  Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals: The Beginning of the End for the ICTY and ICTR. 8 International Organizations L. Rev. 349 (2011).

Gabrielle McIntyre. The International Residual Mechanism and the Legacy of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. 3 Goettingen J. Int’l L. 923 (2011).

Thomas Wayde Pittman. The Road to the Establishment of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals: From Completion to Continuation. 9 J. Int’l Crim. Just.797 (2011).

Lexis.com will still exist, for now, but your Lexis Advance ID and password will become your login and password for the Lexis Law School home page, Lexis.com and for Lexis Advance. Also the Lexis.com content may be more limited than on Lexis Advance. This is the case for all law schools across the country. If you already have a Lexis Advance ID and password, you need not do anything further. You are set. 

If you have never acquired your Lexis Advance login and password, you have about a month to act before you lose access to Lexis. The best way to acquire it is to contact our Lexis account executive, Jennifer M. Durkin, jennifer.durkin@lexisnexis.com. Jennifer will schedule customized, in-office training on the Lexis Advance interface for faculty members. CLE credit is available for the training for faculty.

The biggest drawback of Lexis Advance for experienced users is that the interface is different than Lexis.com. That is the biggest barrier you will encounter. Remember that the content is the same you are used to now on Lexis.com. And, again, Lexis.com content may be limited after June 30th. If your early experience with Lexis Advance was negative, however, try it now that it has improved. It now provides field (segment) searching and browsing by source, which has made it more acceptable to experienced Lexis users. The graphical enhancements to Shepard’s reports include the Appellate History Map and Citing Decisions Grid.

The basic search strategy encouraged by the design of Lexis Advance is different than what experienced classic Lexis.com users are used to. Rather than starting with selection of a source, you now start with the broadest search possible (using either terms and connectors or natural language). Then limit your search results by using the “Narrow by…” filters on the left bar on the screen, which include the ability to narrow by “Content Type,” “Jurisdiction,” “Practice Areas & Topics,” and other relevant options related to the set of results such as Attorney, Law Firm, or Keyword. You may also opt to “Search within results.”

Though LexisNexis is not following Westlaw’s lead in ending free remote printing for law schools, Lexis Advance does provide “foldering” in much the same way Westlaw Next does. Rather than printing, you may choose to store your research using “My Folders.” Folders are retained online until you delete them. “My Folders” is an option in “My Workspace” that appears to the right, in the dark gray bar at the top of the screen. “My Workspace” also includes your “History” (saved 90 days) and “Alerts.”

You don’t have to make an appointment with the Lexis representative in order to get help learning to use Lexis Advance. Faculty and students can stop by or contact the Reference Desk (phone: 216-368-5206 or email: lawref@case.edu). Faculty may also contact their Reference Liaisons.

Part II. Attorneys and Counselors

• Rule 12. Review on Certiorari: How Sought; Parties
  • Change to 12.6 gives more time to some of the  parties to respond
• Rule 13. Review on Certiorari: Time for Petitioning
  • Change to 13.5 clarifies that the extension only applies to the party who requested it
• Rule 14. Content of a Petition for a Write of Certiorari
  • Change to 14.1(c) sets out word limit for petitions prepared under 33.1 and page limit for petitions prepared under 33.2
• Rule 15. Briefs in Opposition; Reply Briefs; Supplemental Briefs
  • Change to 15.5 gives more time for the petitioner to file

Part IV.  Other Jurisdiction

• Rule 18. Appeal from a United States District Court
  • Change to 18.7 gives more time for the appellant to file

Part V. Motions and Applications

• Rule 21. Motions to the Court
  • Change to 21.1 sets out that certain motions must state the position of the other parties.

Part VI. Briefs on the Merits and Oral Argument

• Rule 24. Briefs on the Merits: In General
  • Change to 24.1(c) changes trigger for the table of contents requirement from number of words to number of pages
• Rule 28. Oral Argument
  • Creation of 28.8 setting out that if an attorney is not a member of the Bar of this court he may request permission to participate by motion to argue pro hac vice

Part VII. Practice and Procedure

• Rule 29. Filing and Service of Documents; Special Notifications; Corporate Listing
  • Change to 29.3 adds requirement, with exceptions, to send all parties electronic copies of filings
  • Change to 29.6 requires “prompt” notice of changes in a corporate disclosure statement
• Rule 30. Computation and Extension of Time
  • Change to 30.3 adds requirement that the underlying judgment or decision must be on the merits
• Rule 33. Document Preparation: Booklet Format; 81/2- by 11-Inch Paper Format
  • Change to 33.1(d) adds verbatim quotations required under Rule 24.1(f) set out in the text to the list of words not to be counted toward word limit
  • Change to 33.1(g)(ii) added Responsdent’s Brief in Support of Certiorari
• Rule 34. Document Preparation: General Requirements
  • Change to 34.2 sets out word limit for petitions prepared under 33.1 and page limit for petitions files under 33.2
• Rule 37. Brief for an Amicus Curiae
  • Change to 37.2(a) clarifies who must get consent to file under this subparagraph and adds a provision allowing a  party to submit a blanket consent to the Clerk
  • Change to 37.3(a) clarifies who must get consent to file under this subparagraph and adds a provision allowing a  party to submit a blanket consent to the Clerk
• Rule 39. Proceedings In Forma Pauperis
  • Change to 39.1 adds state courts to exemption

Part VIII. Disposition of Cases

• Rule 44. Rehearing
  • Change to 44.2 sets out that extensions will not be granted for filing a petition for a extraordinary writ or a rehearing of an order denying a petition for a writ of certorari

Part IX. Definitions and Effective Date

• Part 47. Reference to “State Court” and “State Law”
  • Change to 47 adds the Virgin Islands Supreme Court and laws

By extension, such a situation is related to how a government protects whistleblowers versus how it prevents leaks that have a negative impact on national security. President Obama’s Justice Department, as its critics are quick to point out, has prosecuted twice as many (6) “whistleblowers” under the Espionage Act of 1917 as previous administrations, despite the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012.

Selected Law Journal Scholarship

Robert Bejesky. National Security Information Flow: From Source to Reporter’s Privilege. 24 St. Thomas L. Rev.399 (2012).

Robert Bejesky. Press Clause Aspirations and the Iraq War. 48 Willamette L. Rev. 343 (2012).

William E. Lee. The Demise of the Federal Shield Law. 30 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 27 (2012).

Robert Bejesky. Intelligence Information and Judicial Evidentiary Standards. 44 Creighton L. Rev. 811 (2011).

Heather M. Lacey. Note. Government Secrets, National Security and Freedom of the Press: The Ability of the United States to Prosecute Julian Assange. 1 Nat’l Sec. & Armed Conflict L. Rev. 202 (2010-2011).

Sharon Docter. Blogging and Journalism: Extending Shield Law Protection to New Media Forms. 54 J. Broad. & Elec. Media 588 (2010).

Jane E. Kirtley. Mask, Shield, and Sword: Should the Journalist’s Privilege Protect the Identity of Anonymous Posters to News Media Websites. 94 Minn. L. Rev. 1478 (2010).

Note. Media Incentives and National Security Secrets. 122 Harv. L. Rev. 2228 (2009).

Panel: Censoring and Prosecuting the Press – An Assessment of Reporters’ Shield Legislation  57 Am. U. L. Rev. 1218 (2008).

Mary-Rose Papandrea. Lapdogs, Watchdogs, and Scapegoats: The Press and National Security Information. 83 Ind. L.J. 233 (2008).

David Rudenstine. Transcript of Weapons of Mass Destruction, National Security, and a Free Press: Seminal Issues as Viewed through the Lens of the Progressive Case. 26 Cardozo L. Rev. 1337 (2005).

Theodore Campagnolo. The Conflict between State Press Shield Laws and Federal Criminal Proceedings: The Rule 501 Blues. 38 Gonz. L. Rev. 445 (2002-2003).

Comment. Remote Sensing: The Media, the Military, and the National Security Establishment – A First Amendment Time Bomb. 59 Journal Air L. & Com. 239 (1993).

John M. Jr. Tkacik. Protecting Trade Secrets and Confidential Information from Media Disclosure: Removing the Reporter’s Shield 41 Clev. St. L. Rev. 175 (1993).

Howard B. Homonoff. Note. The First Amendment and National Security: The Constitutionality of Press Censorship and Access Denial in Military Operations. 17 N.Y.U. J. Int’l L. & Pol. 369 (1985).

Harold M. Cook. Freedom of Speech and Press vs. National Security. 3 Ala. Law. 78 (1942).

May 20, 2012, High 86, Low 54, with no precipitation.

May 15, 2011, High 55, Low 46, 0.19 precipitation.

May 16, 2010, High 64, Low 53, with no precipitation.

May 17, 2009, High 58, Low 40, with no precipitation.

May 18, 2008 High 58, Low 48, with .38 precipitation.

If this year is like the last five years it will either been warm and sunny or chilly and damp.  So, bring a jacket and an umbrella to graduation.

This information comes from the Cleveland weather history: find weather detail for any date since 1900 page. The site allows you to pick a specific date, all days since January 1, 1900, or any variation in between.  So, you can check you memory about what the weather was like on your birthdays, anniversaries, or that special day for the last hundred plus years.  The site also has built in searches such as Halloween, or the Indian’s home openers.  There are also pre-set searches to find Snow day of 10 inches or more and 100+ degree days.  (In June 1988 Cleveland had a high of 104 and a low of 63.)  The underlying data comes from the National Climate Data Center and National Weather Service.

The International Dairy Foods Association and the National Milk Producers Federation requested that the “nutritive sweetener” language in milk’s standard of identity, the section dealing with optional characterizing flavoring ingredients, be changed to “any safe and suitable sweeteners.” The petitioners suggested the following language:

§131.110 Milk

…

(c) Optional ingredients. The following safe and suitable ingredients may be used.

(1) Carriers for vitamins A and D.

(2) Characterizing flavoring ingredients (with or without coloring, any safe and suitable sweetener, emulsifiers, and stabilizers as follows:

(i) Fruit and fruit juice (including concentrated fruit and fruit juice).

(ii) Natural and artificial food flavorings.

The FDA has requested comments, data, and information concerning this petition. The request includes six specific questions dealing with honesty, fair dealing, misleading information, children’s purchasing habits, information search costs, and similarity to ice cream and other dairy products. Currently 36,202 comments have been submitted. Only 192 are on regulations.gov. All comments will be posted on regulations.gov according to the contact given in the Federal Register. It is expected that all comments will be posted by some time in June.

The comment period is open until May 21, 2013. To  submit a comment go to regulations.gov or deliver it to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. For more information see, 78 FR 11791, February 20, 2013.

Before commenting it would be a good idea to go to the FDA’s website for more information. The website has detailed information on how to comment on a proposed regulation. Also, one of the FDA’s Consumer Updates is about the International Dairy Foods Association and the National Milk Producers Federation petition. The consumer update gives a very clear idea of what the change requested is and is not. There are visual representations of what a current label is required to include and what the changed regulation would required a label to include. The FDA points out that the requested change would not change what must be listed in the ingredients list.

*Page 341, beginning of Part 131 and 21 CFR 131.110 Milk.

** To see the petition click the first attachment at the bottom of document FDA-2009-P-0147-0012.

MOOCs originated around 2008, according to Wikipedia. Growing out of the open educational resources movement, early MOOCs emphasized networks of connections. In 2011, Stanford University launched three courses and enrolled about 100,000 participants. The company Coursera, also founded in 2011, soon announced partnerships with Princeton University, the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University and, the University of Michigan.

The quantity of articles about MOOCs is keeping pace with the variety of experiences at colleges and universities across the country. Here are a few recent articles that discuss this development in distance education and its overall impact on higher education:

Kim Clark, College is Free!, Money, May 2013, at 82.

Michael S. Roth, My Modern Experience Teaching a MOOC, Chronicle of Higher Education, May 3, 2013, at pB18.

Andrew Delbanco, MOOCs of Hazard, New Republic, Apr. 8, 2013 at 28.

Katherine Mangan, MOOC Mania: It’s Raising Big Questions about the Future of Higher Education, Chronicle of Higher Education, Oct. 1, 2012 at pB4.

1. Pro
2. Con
3. Use Tax
4. Recent Developments
5. Supreme Court
6. Selected Resources

The House is considering the Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 (S. 336), which the Senate passed with a 69-27 vote. The Act would allow member states to require “remote” sellers of goods exceeding $1 million per year to collect and remit associated sales and/or use taxes, provided the states meet the conditions of the Act.

Pro

Proponents argue the legislation would “level the playing field” between “bricks and mortar” retailers that collect sales tax on every purchase and the online retailers that currently do not collect sales taxes from out-of-state purchasers. The tax is politically attractive in that it is not a “new” tax, merely one that puts the burden of collecting the requisite sales or use tax on the retailer rather than asking the consumer to voluntarily track and pay her required use tax. One study estimated that states lost $52 billion in unpaid internet sales taxes from 2007-2012. (Payne, Selling, at 928) Also, state budgets are in deficit, with what little remains of the Stimulus funds running out. An interesting, if incomplete, counterargument maintains that over 50% of internet sales are made by “brick and click” retailers that already collect sales tax.

Con

Opponents say the tax will hurt small businesses (which create jobs) and consumers who are already strapped. Some claim that internet retailers place less of a burden on state and local resources. E-Bay is lobbying for a small business exemption for sales of up to $10 million per year. Opponents argue that compliance would entail knowing thousands of different tax rates, something that the Supreme Court considered overly burdensome back in pre-internet days. Proponents argue that computer systems (similar to the ones that facilitate delivery logistics) can help the internet businesses comply with use tax requirements. States would also have to simplify the procedures by which companies remit tax payments, either through formal participation in the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement or by implementing specific procedures that would have a similar impact.

Use Tax

States began imposing use taxes in the 1930s. Ohio’s use tax became effective as of Jan. 1, 1936, to put “in state” businesses on par with out-of-state businesses. Within the last decade or two, Ohio has become more proactive about reminding individual tax filers to pay the use tax. Currently, citizens are supposed to pay a use tax on “transactions where sales tax was due but not collected by the vendor or seller” when they file their incomes taxes. The large increase in internet retailing during the last couple decades, along with the aforementioned state and local budgetary shortfalls, has encouraged states to rededicate efforts to collect use taxes on products bought from out-of-state companies. A proposed tax “Simplification Act” in 2007 “would have granted federal authorization to member states to require all sellers to collect and remit sales and use taxes for remote sales under the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement,” for retailers with taxable nationwide sales of $5 million or more. (Payne, Selling, at 941.)

Recent Developments

Major internet retailers and companies have had varying responses to state use taxes and the proposed internet sales tax. Google sought an exemption to being subject to California’s use tax, although Google has quite a “nexus” to California. At one point, Amazon argued that its Amazon Associates in New York state were merely providing advertising for Amazon, despite the fact the Amazon paid them a percentage of referred sales and a premium for referred customers who also signed up for Amazon Prime. In the past, Amazon also has tried to leverage its job creation impact to mitigate the tax implications when it sets up a “physical presence” (e.g. warehouse) in a state, another trigger that traditionally necessitates the collection of state sales tax in that state.

Nevertheless, Amazon now seems to be on board with an internet sales tax, and may even offer services to help other internet retailers comply with such legislation, if passed. A cynic may argue that, like established tobacco companies that may have actually benefited from the 1970 ban on cigarette advertising, Amazon may gain a competitive advantage over smaller competitors if an internet sales tax is passed. Large “brick and click” retailers that already charge sales tax (such as Walmart) would benefit, as well.

Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on the issue of whether or not companies have to collect out-of-state sales and use taxes in varying constitutional contexts over the years. In Nelson v. Sears, 312 U.S. 359 (1941), the Supreme Court held that it did not violate the Constitution or the 14th Amendment for Iowa to require Sears to collect tax on out-of-state mail orders shipped directly to purchasers in Iowa by mail or common carrier. In Scripto, Inc. v. Carson, 362 U.S. 207 (1960), the Court held that it did not violate the Commerce Clause or the Due Process Clause for Florida to levy a use tax on sales made by Scripto’s brokers in Florida, while all other aspects of such sales were handled in Georgia. In National Bellas Hess v. Dept. of Revenue, 386 U.S. 753 (1967), the Court held that Illinois was prohibited by the Commerce Clause from imposing a duty to collect use tax on a Missouri mail order company whose only connection with its Illinois customers was by mail or common carrier. In Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992), the Court held that North Dakota’s “enforcement of the use tax against Quill places an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce,” although the Court’s due process jurisprudence had evolved as to render the “physical presence in state” nexus no longer applicable. The Court also ruled that: ” [A] mail-order house may have the “minimum contacts” with a taxing State as required by the Due Process Clause and yet lack the “substantial nexus” with the State required by the Commerce Clause”; that the Bellas Hess standard was still “good law”; and that Congress may be better suited to resolve the issue. Congress unsuccessfully introduced similar fair-marketplace legislation in 2010 and 2011.

Selected Resources

Andrew T. Cannon. Where California Went Wrong with the Amazon Tax: Application of Due Process and Commerce Clause Jurisprudence to State Use Tax Collection Requirements Imposed on Out-of-State Internet Retailers. 39 Hastings Const. L.Q. 691 (2012).

Matthew D. Martin. Fair For Whom? Amazon Kindles the Fight over Internet Sales Tax. 46 John Marshall L. Rev. 357 (2012).

Michael J. Payne. Selling the Main Street Fairness Act: A Viable Solution to the Internet Sales Tax Problem. 44 Ariz. St. L.J. 927 (2012).

Maryann Gall and Laura Kulwicki. The Lawmaker’s Guide to Sales Tax Nexus. 30 J. State Taxation 11 (Nov./Dec. 2011).

Sam Zaprzalka. New York’s Amazon Tax Not Out of the Forest Yet: The Battle over Affiliate Nexus. 33 Seattle U. L. Rev. 527 (2010).

Carlton S. Dargusch and Darold L. Greek. The Ohio Use Tax. 2 L.J. Student Bar Ass’n Ohio St. U. 115 (1935-1936).