State ex rel. Wasden v. Maybee

148 Idaho 520 (2010) (Idaho 2010) · Supreme Court of Idaho · January 15, 2010 · No. No. 35200

Summary

The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment against Scott B. Maybee, an out-of-state internet tobacco seller, for violating Idaho's Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement Complementary Act and Prevention of Minors' Access to Tobacco Act. The court held that the Complementary Act applies to interstate delivery sales made to Idaho consumers and that the sales occurred in Idaho for purposes of the statute. It rejected Maybee's claims that the statutes were preempted by the Interstate Commerce Clause or Indian Commerce Clause.

Holdings

  1. The Complementary Act applies to both intrastate and interstate sellers of noncompliant cigarettes to Idaho consumers.
  2. The Complementary Act regulates cigarettes as defined by the Master Settlement Agreement Act, not merely tax-stamped units sold.
  3. The Idaho Uniform Commercial Code is irrelevant to determining where Maybee's cigarette sales occurred for purposes of the Complementary Act; the sales occurred in Idaho.
  4. The Complementary Act is not preempted by the dormant Interstate Commerce Clause as applied to Maybee.
  5. The Complementary Act and the Prevention of Minors' Access to Tobacco Act are not preempted by the Indian Commerce Clause as applied to Maybee.
  6. The State, as the prevailing party, is entitled to attorney fees and costs on appeal under Idaho Code section 39-8407(5).

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Idaho's Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement Complementary Act applies to interstate delivery sellers and prohibits Maybee's sales of noncompliant cigarettes to Idaho consumers.
  2. Whether the Idaho Uniform Commercial Code determines the situs of Maybee's cigarette sales for purposes of the Complementary Act.
  3. Whether the Complementary Act is preempted by the dormant Interstate Commerce Clause.
  4. Whether the Complementary Act and the Prevention of Minors' Access to Tobacco Act are preempted by the Indian Commerce Clause as applied to Maybee.
  5. Whether the State is entitled to attorney fees on appeal under Idaho Code section 39-8407(5).

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (27)

  • Boise Tower Assoc., LLC v. Hogland, 147 Idaho 774, 779, 215 P.3d 494, 499 (2009)(followed)
  • Mendenhall v. Aldous, 146 Idaho 434, 436, 196 P.3d 352, 354 (2008)(followed)
  • Taylor v. Maile, 146 Idaho 705, 711, 201 P.3d 1282, 1288 (2009)(followed)
  • City of Sandpoint v. Sandpoint Independent Highway District, 139 Idaho 65, 69, 72 P.3d 905, 909 (2003)(followed)
  • Friends of Farm to Market v. Valley County, 137 Idaho 192, 197, 46 P.3d 9, 14 (2002)(followed)
  • Lockhart v. Department of Fish and Game, 121 Idaho 894, 897, 828 P.3d 1299, 1302 (1992)(followed)
  • In re Daniel W., 145 Idaho 677, 680, 183 P.3d 765, 768 (2008)(followed)
  • Druffel v. State, Department of Transportation, 136 Idaho 853, 856, 41 P.3d 739, 742 (2002)(followed)
  • United Haulers Ass'n v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority, 550 U.S. 330, 338, 127 S. Ct. 1786, 1792, 167 L. Ed. 2d 655, 664 (2007)(followed)
  • Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of Oregon, 511 U.S. 93, 99, 114 S. Ct. 1345, 1350, 128 L. Ed. 2d 13, 21 (1994)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 27.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…