Brann & Isaacson Opposes State’s Conditional Cross-Petition for Certiorari on Behalf of Direct Marketing Association in DMA v. Brohl

separator

Brann & Isaacson Opposes State’s Conditional Cross-Petition for Certiorari on Behalf of Direct Marketing Association in DMA v. Brohl


On Monday, November 7, 2016, acting as counsel to the Direct Marketing Association, Brann & Isaacson filed a Brief in Opposition to the Conditional Cross-Petition for a Writ of Certiorari filed by the State of Colorado with the United States Supreme Court in Brohl v. Direct Mktg. Ass’n, No. 16-458. The DMA opposes the effort of the State to convert the DMA’s petition for cert. in DMA v. Brohl, No. 16-267, into a vehicle for the Court to review the physical presence standard of “substantial nexus” reaffirmed by the Court in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992). In the opposition, the DMA argues that the conditional cross-petition is both procedurally improper and grossly misrepresents the record in the case. In addition, the DMA notes that the State fails to inform the Supreme Court of the many developments in remote sales tax collection in recent years that make the case an even less appropriate vehicle for a review of the Quill standard. Brann & Isaacson senior partner George Isaacson and partner Matthew Schaefer are co-counsel to the DMA in the case.

A copy of the brief is available here.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
separator