Nextel Communications of the Mid-Atlantic, Inc., Petitioner v. Pennsylvania Department of Revenue

Track this case

Case overview

Case Number:

17-1506

Court:

Supreme Court

Nature of Suit:

Firms

Companies

Government Agencies

Sectors & Industries:

  1. June 11, 2018

    Supreme Court Won't Review Nextel's $3.9M Tax Refund Suit

    The U.S. Supreme Court said Monday it would not hear an appeal from Nextel Communications asking the court to find whether it was entitled to a $3.9 million refund following the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's saying a law limiting business losses violated the state constitution.

  2. June 05, 2018

    Trade Group Asks High Court To Hear Nextel's $3.9M Tax Refund

    A corporate trade group has told the U.S. Supreme Court that Nextel Communications was entitled to a $3.9 million refund following the Pennsylvania Supreme Court finding a law limiting business losses violated the state's constitution, arguing the high court needs to address a "lack of due process" and avoid a chilling effect on the ability to challenge state tax statutes.

  3. June 04, 2018

    Pa. Owes Nextel $3.9M Tax Refund, Group Tells High Court

    The state of Pennsylvania owes Nextel Communications a tax refund of $3.9 million after the state Supreme Court found a law limiting business losses violated the state's Constitution but refused to offer relief, a group told the U.S. Supreme Court in an amicus brief filed Monday.  

  4. June 01, 2018

    7 High Court Petitions From Last Month You Shouldn't Miss

    From a $1.7 billion case involving Iran's central bank to a major question under the America Invents Act, the U.S. Supreme Court docketed a broad swath of cert petitions in May. Here, Law360 takes a look at the past month's most interesting requests for high court review.

  5. May 07, 2018

    Nextel Asks Supreme Court For $3.9M Refund In Pa. Taxes

    Nextel Communications has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to find it is entitled to a $3.9 million tax refund after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found a state law limiting business losses violated the state's Constitution but refused to grant the refund.