1. In Cuno v. Daimlerchrysler, Inc., 386 F.3d 738, rev'd in part on other grounds, 547 US 332 (2006), the Court of Appeals held the following: (Please note that there may be one or more answers could be correct, please select what you believe to be the one best correct answer)

1.

The Court allowed the personal property tax exemption because it did not discriminate, because it dealt with property placed in a specific location.

2.

The Court disallowed the investment tax credit because it violated the discrimination aspect of the Commerce Clause.

3.

The Court allowed the property tax exemption because it noted the State statute allowed the exemption and Due Process was not violated.

4.

The Court disallowed both the property tax abatement and the investment tax credit.

5.

The Court agreed with the Taxpayer, the State of Ohio, that all the tax incentives did not violate the Commerce Clause.

6.

The Court disallowed the investment tax credit because it violated Due Process.

7-The Court bifurcated its holding, allowing the investment tax credits, stating the credits did not violate the Commerce Clause.

2-In Quill Corporation v. North Dakota, 504 US 298 (1992), the Supreme Court decided in Quill's favor on the following grounds:

	1.	North Dakota violated Due Process and Commerce Clause in its requirement for Quill to collect sales tax.
	2.	North Dakota violated Due Process in requiring Quill to collect sales tax.
	3.	North Dakota did not violate either Due Process or Commerce Clause and Quill is required to collect sales tax.
	4.	North Dakota violated the Commerce Clause because North Dakota did not meet the established factors in order to require Quill to collect sales tax