# In Re Nestle USA, Inc.

> Texas Supreme Court · October 19, 2012 · 56 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 36

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9513186

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re NESTLE USA, INC., Relator
- **Court:** Texas Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 19, 2012
- **Citations:** 56 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 36; 387 S.W.3d 610; 2012 Tex. LEXIS 895; 2012 WL 5073315
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Willett
- **Judges:** Hecht, Jefferson, Medina, Green, Johnson, Guzman, Willett, Lehrmann
- **Cited by:** 66 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9513186

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that in prior suit, supreme court “held that payment under protest was a jurisdictional prerequisite to [taxpayer’s] challenge and dismissed the proceeding. Nestle then paid the $8,682,999 due for 2012 8 under protest and re-filed its challenge.”
- explaining that equal protection clause “keeps governmental decisionmakers from treating differently persons who are in all relevant respects alike”
- observing that " ‘courts remain hopelessly befuddled in this area’ ” (quoting Scott A. Keller & Misha Tseytlin, Applying Constitutional Decision Rules Versus Invalidating Statutes in Toto, 98 Va. L.Rev. 301, 312(2012))
- explaining that “taxable margin” is entity’s margin multiplied by percentage of gross receipts earned from business in Texas
- explaining that “taxable margin” is entity’s margin multiplied by percentage of gross receipts from Texas business

## Opinion text

Justice WILLETT,
joined by Justice LEHRMANN, dissenting.
For the reasons explained in my separate writing in In re Allcat Claims Service, L.P., 1 I believe the Court lacks exclusive original mandamus jurisdiction in taxpayers’ constitutional challenges like this. In my view, the Court has stretched our mandamus jurisprudence beyond its constitutional and prudential limits. I would reaffirm those purposeful curbs on judicial power, not redefine them.
Mandamus is not a jurisdictional talisman to conjure instant Supreme Court review. As a constitutional matter, we cannot exercise original jurisdiction that the Constitution does not permit; as a statutory matter, the Tax Code disallows taxpayer suits like this; and as a prudential matter, deciding whether a statute is constitutional is simply not the stuff of mandamus.
All in all, because I believe the Court has disregarded settled doctrines to remake the mandamus remedy into something more ordinary than extraordinary, I respectfully dissent.
. 356 S.W.3d 455, 474-93 (Tex.2011).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9513186. Public record. Not legal advice.