Doe 1 v. AOL LLC, 552 F.3d 1077 (2009)
FACTS: Kasadore Ramkissoon, Doe 1, and Doe 2 and are the plaintiffs in this case and AOL is the defendant. The plaintiffs are filing action against AOL stating the defendant violated the electronic privacy law and California law. AOL reportedly released information of more than 650,000 member’s personal information and made it public. The personal information included images, social security numbers, age, work history among other things.
ISSUE: Should the California courts dismiss the case against AOL if it applies stare decisis?
RULE: With previous ruling on the Mendoza,108 Cal.Rptr.2d at 710 the courts then ruled in the favor of the plaintiff.
APPLICATION: Judicial decision was used when coming to…show more content… Plaintiff feels as though they are wrongfully taxed. Regency headquarters is in Massachusetts. They had purchased their fleet from other states and do not get taxes on sales. Defendant claims the plaintiff must pay tax while operating in Massachusetts. Regency Transportation is claiming that it is violating the commerce clause of the United States and Massachusetts constitutions.
ISSUE: Is the motor vehicle use tax on Regency violating the commerce clause?
RULE: After examination, the courts decided that there were no violations in the commerce clause and ruled in favor of the Commissioner of Revenue. Courts found that the Commissioner of Revenue uses a tax that was within all guidelines of the complete auto test.
APPLICATION: The Complete Auto test determined that there weren’t any violations in the commerce clause. This test makes sure the tax is applied to activity that has considerable amount of the state applying the taxes.
CONCLUSION: Since there were no violations of the commerce clause the courts ordered that the rulings previously found stick. The court favored with the Commissioner of Revenue after reviewing evidence found by the Tax
