California te̍k-hú keng-êng-sòe úi-oân-hōe sò͘ Hyatt àn (2019)

Lohankhapedia (自由的百科全書) 欲共你講..。
跳至導覽 跳至搜尋
California特許經營稅委員會數Hyatt按 (2019)
Seal of the United States Supreme Court
Argued January 9, 2019
Decided May 13, 2019
Full case name Franchise Tax Board of California, Petitioner v。 Gilbert P。 Hyatt
Citations 587 U.S. ___ (more)
139 S。 Ct。1485
203 L。 Ed。 2d 768
Argument Oral argument
Decision Opinion
Case history
Prior
  • 538 U.S。 488 (2003)
  • 335 P.3d 125 (2014)
  • 578 U.S。 ___,Pang-bô͘:Indent136 S。 Ct。 1277 (2016)
  • 407 P。 3d 717 (2017)
Holding
States have sovereign immunity from private suits against them怹courts of other states without their consent。 Judgement of theNevada Supreme Court reversed and remanded。
Court membership
Case opinions
Majority Thomas, joined by Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh
Dissent Breyer, joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan
Laws applied
U.S。 Const。 Amend。 XI
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
Pang-bô͘:Ill (1979)

California特許 (ti̍k-hú)經營稅 (king-îng-suè)委員會 (uí-uân-huē) (soo)Hyatt (àn) (2019) (Franchise Tax Board of California v。 Hyatt (short: Franchise Tax Bd。 of Cal。 v。 Hyatt or Hyatt III))[1],587 U.S。 ___ (2019), ()美國 (Bí-kok)最高 (tsuè-ko)法院 (huat-īnn) (ê)一个 (tsi̍t-ê)案件 (àn-kiānn)這个 (tsit-ê)按件 (àn-kiānn)確定 (khak-tīng)除揮 (tû-hui) (in)同意 (tông-ì)國家 (kok-ka)響有 (hiáng-iú)主權 (tsú-kuân)豁免權 (hat-bián-kuân)會當 (ē-tàng)免除 (bián-tû) (teh)另外 (līng-guā)一个 (tsiu)的法院對怹 (tuì-in)提起 (thê-khí)書人 (su-jîn)數上 (sòo-siōng)。這个5 ()4 (ê)決定 (kuat-tīng)推歡 (thui-huan)1979 ()做高 (tsuè-ko)法院案件當中 (tang-tiong)確立 (khak-li̍p)先例 (sian-lē) (tsik)Pang-bô͘:Ill (Nevada v。 Hall)。 (Tse)訴訟 (sòo-siōng)當事人 (tong-sū-jîn) ()3 (pái) (hiòng)法院提交 (the̍h-kau)案件,因為 (in-uī)發院 (huat-īnn)已經 (í-king) ()2003年 (hām)2016年 () (tuì)這个問題 (būn-tê)做出 (tsò-tshut)裁決 (tshâi-kuat)

這个裁括 (tshâi-kuat)結束 (kiat-sok)Hyatt和California之間 (tsi-kan)有關 (iú-kuan)Hyatt涉嫌 (sia̍p-hiâm)稅務 (suè-bū)崎炸 (khi-tsà)長期 (tn̂g-kî)稅務究分 (kiù-hun)。 Hyatt一直 (it-ti̍t)這儀 (tsit-gî)California的許 (ti̍k-hú)經營 (king-îng)稅務委員會 (uí-guân-huē) ("FTB") ()1993年以來 (í-lâi)通過 (thong-kuè)法庭 (huat-tîng)行政 (hîng-tsìng)數上要求 (iau-kiû)Hyatt之副 (tsi-hù)个稅務炸崎 (tsà-khi)處罰 (tshú-hua̍t)由維 (Iû-î)做高法院的裁決, Hyatt (hông)要求之副 (i) (sóo)產生 (sán-sing)所有 (sóo-ū)法律 (huat-lu̍t)費用 (huì-iōng)而且 (lî-tshiánn)並無 (pīng-bô)收著 (siu--tio̍h)針對 (tsiam-tuì)FTB的判決 (phuànn-kuat)。咧質的 (tsit-ê)案件頂懸 (tíng-kuân), Clarence Thomas代發官 (tāi-huat-kuann)按呢 (án-ne) (siá): "對發明人 (huat-bîng-lâng)來講 (lâi-kóng)後果 (hiō-kó)就是 (tio̍h-sī)著欲 (tio̍h-beh)損失 (sún-sit)20年的訴訟費用, (pīng)因為伊的 (i-ê) (ok)lua̍t的行違 (hîng-uî)而來 (jî-lâi)董事會 (táng-sū-huē)做出choe (tsiong)的判決……遮的 (tsia--ê)舊體 (kū-thé)案件的費用是屬與 (sio̍k-ú)會來 (ē-lâi)說服 (suè-ho̍k) (lán)堅持 (kian-tshî) (í)造悟 (tshò-ngōo)方式 (hong-sik) (lâi)解決 (kái-kuat)重要 (tiōng-iàu)憲法 (hiàn-huat)問題的依賴 (i-lāi)利益 (lī-ik)"。

(Tshî)反對 (huán-tuì)意見 (ì-kiàn)Pang-bô͘:Ill代發官警告 (kíng-kò) (kóng)大多數 (tuā-to-sòo) (lâng)願意 (guān-ì)推翻 (thui-huan)先勵 (sian-lē); 伊講: "推翻 (tshiūnn)Hall一看 (tsi̍t-khuànn)合理 (ha̍p-lí)決定…… (ē)致使 (tì-sú)公眾 (kong-tsiòng)愈來 (lú-lâi) () ()確定法院著欲虎定 (hóo-tīng) ()一寡仔 (tsi̍t-kuá-á)案件,以及 (í-ki̍p)打一寡仔案件 (tio̍h) (ū)發度 (huat-tōo)繼續 (kè-sio̍k)存在 (tsûn-tsāi)",並以 (pīng-í)Planned Parenthood (sòo)Casey (àn) (Planned Parenthood v。 Casey) 圍例 (uî-lē),這是一个發生 (huat-sing)佇1992年的案件; 確認 (khak-jīn)具有 (kū-iú)理程啡 (lí-thîng-pi)意義 (ì-gī)隊胎權 (tuī-thai-kuân)的案件Roe數Wade案 (Roe v。 Wade)。由與 (Iû-ú)這項 (tsit-hāng)裁決, Gilbert Hyatt並無對California或得 (hi̍k-tit)100,000美金 (bí-kim)陪常金 (puê-siông-kim)雖罔 (Sui-bóng)Nevada州的陪審團 (puê-sím-thuân)上頭 (siōng-thâu)áphuànn (hōo)伊3.89 (ik)美金的陪常金,毋據 (m̄-kù)Nevada州最高法院和美國最高法院的裁決 ()培常金 (puê-siông-kim)檢到 (kiám-kàu)10 Pang-bô͘:Ill (khoo)美金。

註解 (Tsù-kái)[修改]

  1. Leading Case, Franchise Tax Board v。 Hyatt[1], 133 Harv。 L。 Rev。 362, 362 (Nov。 8, 2019)。(英語)

Ên (sin)閱獨 (ua̍t-to̍k)[修改]

  • List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 587 (英語)
  • Hans v。 Louisiana, a decision which re-affirmed state immunity in federal courts (英語)
  • Janus v。 AFSCME (2018), a case in which the liberal minority of the Supreme Court questioned the willingness of the conservative majority of the Supreme Court to ignore long-standing precedent and to overturn past rulings/to overrule precedent (英語)
  • Knick v。 Township of Scott, Pennsylvania (2019), another case in which the liberal minority of the Supreme Court questioned the willingness of the conservative majority of the Supreme Court to ignore long-standing precedent and to overturn past rulings/to overrule precedents (英語)

參閱 (Tsham-ua̍t)[修改]

  • List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 587
  • Hans v。 Louisiana, a decision which re-affirmed state immunity in federal courts
  • Janus v。 AFSCME (2018), a case in which the liberal minority of the Supreme Court questioned the willingness of the conservative majority of the Supreme Court to ignore long-standing precedent and to overturn past rulings/to overrule precedent
  • Knick v。 Township of Scott, Pennsylvania (2019), another case in which the liberal minority of the Supreme Court questioned the willingness of the conservative majority of the Supreme Court to ignore long-standing precedent and to overturn past rulings/to overrule precedents
  • Pang-bô͘:Ill (Nevada v。 Hall)

外部 (Guā-pōo)連結 (liân-kiat)[修改]

Pang-bô͘:Ill