# Opposition Brief — St. Ledger v. Kentucky Revenue Cabinet

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385017_1299%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Opposition Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 1996
- **Citation:** 517 U.S. 1206

## Text

4

No. 95-1531

AER 19 1996

In The
Supreme Court of the United S
October Term, 1995 o~
.

HERSCHEL ST. LEDGER and Z. NICKI ST. LEDGER,
Individually and on behalf of
Others Similarly Situated,

Petitioners,

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, REVENUE
CABINET and MARGARET A. HANDMAKER,
in her official capacity as Secretary of the
Revenue Cabinet, Commonwealth of Kentucky,

Respondents.
SI

On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari
To The Supreme Court Of Kentucky
.

RESPONSE TO PETITION
FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
>

CHartes S. Cassis

STEPHEN R. ScHMIDT

Counsel of Record

Brown, Topp & Heysurn PLLC
3200 Providian Center
Louisville, Kentucky 40202-3363
(502) 589-5400

Fax: (502) 581-1087

JENNIFER SARTOR SMART

Office of General Counsel

Division of Lega! Services

Commonwealth of Kentucky
Revenue Cabinet

P.O. Box 423

Frankfort, Kentucky 40206

(502) 564-3112

Fax: (502) 564-4044

COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO. (600) 225-6964
OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-283!

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
pe SE or Pree ore tee er eee i
PE SE CP URINE a Nsccncccccesescctscecece ii
RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR WRiT OF CER-
MCSE p oo.4 Cegeuvark isd bdarerddes ssas¢ecee. 1
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
Cases
American National Bank & Trust Company v. Hanson,
me ue, 12> LBG.26 737, 113 SCL.
SP SWUCSLIDEE Rbehyscoatdcn dy sesdvedseswesevevees |
Darnell v. Indiana, 226 U.S. 390 (1912)................ 1
Fulton Corporation v. Faulkner, 516 U.S.__, 133
ee, ef ee eee errr 1
Hunt v. McNair, 403 U.S. 945, 29 L.Ed.2d 854, 91
i nhs cLeteritehssurudesoorivercerocs 2
Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734, 37 L.Ed.2d 923, 93
sed ocou> cee pukaeeepescertcececces 2

TXO Corporation v. Alliance Resources, 509 U.S. ____
pe Bk RS es ee). eee 2

asc

RESPONSE TO PETITION
FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

For their response to the Petitioners’ petition for writ
of certiorari, Respondents, Commonwealth of Kentucky,
Revenue Cabinet, and Margaret Handmaker, in her offi-
cial capacity as Secretary of the Revenue Cabinet, Com-
monwealth of Kentucky (collectively the “Revenue
Cabinet”), state that Petitioners are correct in stating that
the Supreme Court of Kentucky did not have the benefit
of this Court’s recent opinion in Fulton Corporation v.
Faulkner, 516 U.S.__, 133 L.Ed.2d 796, 116 S.Ct. __
(1996), when it rendered its October 19, 1995, opinion in
this case regarding the Kentucky ad valorem tax on
shares of stock and that it relied on the earlier opinion of
this Court in Darnell v. Indiana, 226 U.S. 390 (1912).!

In light of those facts, the Revenue Cabinet does not
oppose the grant of a writ of certiorari in this case.
However, because the Kentucky ad valorem tax statutes
differ from the North Carolina statutes reviewed in Fulton
Corporation v. Faulkner, the Revenue Cabinet respectfully
submits that the proper course would be for this Court to
vacate the decision of the Supreme Court of Kentucky
and remand the case for further consideration in light of
the Fulton Corporation v. Faulkner de<ision.

This Court followed that course of action recently in
American National Bank & Trust Company v. Hanson, 509
U.S. __, 125 L.Ed.2d 717, 113 S.Ct. __ (1993) (writ

} Although Respondents disagree with many of the
statements in the Petition, such statements are virtually ail
immaterial to the position of the Petition and will not be
pursued before this —ourt.

granted, judgment vacated and case remanded to
Supreme Court of Kentucky for further consideration in
light of TXO Corporation v. Alliance Resources, 509 U.S. __,
125 L.Ed.2d 366, 113 S.Ct. ____ (1993)); and earlier in Hunt
v. McNair, 403 U.S. 945, 29 L.Ed.2d 854, 91 S.Ct. 2276
(1971) (writ granted, judgment vacated, and case
remanded to Supreme Court of South Carolina for recon-
sideration in light of several recently decided cases), sub-
sequent decision affirmed in Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734,
37 L.Ed.2d 923, 93 S.Ct. 2868 (1973).

Such a disposition will give the parties the opportunity
to brief and argue to the justices of the Supreme Court of
Kentucky the principles enunciated in this Court’s decision
in Fulton Corporation v. Faulkner. If the decision on the merits
by the Supreme Court of Kentucky were to change, this
would also give the parties and that court the opportunity to
address questions of remedy not addressed in the October
19, 1995, opinion of the Supreme Court of Kentucky.

Respectfully submitted,

CHar.es S. Cassis

STEPHEN R. SCHMIDT

Counsel of Record

Brown, Topp & Heysurn PLLC
3200 Providian Center
Louisville, Kentucky 40202
(502) 589-5400

Fax: (502) 581-1087

JENNIFER SARTOR SMART

Office of Generali Counsel

Division of Legal Services

Commonwealth of Kentucky
Revenue Cabinet

P.O. Box 423

Frankfort, Kentucky 40206

(502) 564-3112

Fax: (502) 564-4044

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385017_1299%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.