Summary

Portrait of John Marshall Harlan II John Marshall Harlan II Eli Lilly and Company v. Sav-on-Drugs…

I am not prepared to subscribe to such an extension at the expense of state power to regulate the promotion of sales of goods owned and located within the State when the countervailing federal considerations are as thin as they seem to me to be here, and when the interstate seller remains free to enjoy the immunities of interstate commerce by simply restricting its promotion to those who may buy from its own out-of-state store of goods.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of John Marshall Harlan II John Marshall Harlan II Eli Lilly and Company v. Sav-on-Drugs…

A licensing requirement, as applied in this situation, does not deny Lilly a significant opportunity to reach New Jersey customers. Appellant remains free, and is constitutionally entitled to remain free, to solicit purchases directly by New Jersey retailers and consumers or, alternatively, to rely on its wholesalers to develop the New Jersey market.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of John Marshall Harlan II John Marshall Harlan II Eli Lilly and Company v. Sav-on-Drugs…

Even so, it should be observed that the statute, which immunizes from the reach of state income taxation a foreign concern's intrastate solicitation of orders 'for the benefit of a prospective (interstate) customer,' does not include within such immunity situations where the foreign seller maintains a local office for the purpose of such solicitation. See § 101 (c) of the statute and 105 Cong.Rec. 16469-16477. Lilly maintains an office in New Jersey in connection with its promotional activities.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature