North Carolina Dept. of Revenue v. Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in North Carolina Dept. of Revenue v. Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of North Carolina Dept. of Revenue v. Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust.
The Supreme Court vacated and remanded the judgment of the Court of Appeals in the case involving the North Carolina Dept. of Revenue and the Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust. The Court considered whether the 2006 FCC order was binding and if PDR had a prior and adequate opportunity for judicial review. The case was remanded for further consideration of these preliminary issues.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in North Carolina Dept. of Revenue v. Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust.
The Court held that the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded for further consideration of preliminary issues.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in North Carolina Dept. of Revenue v. Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Administrative Law is relevant to North Carolina Dept. of Revenue v. Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust
The case primarily involves the interpretation and binding nature of an FCC order, which falls under administrative law.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The extent to which the 2006 FCC order binds the lower courts may depend on the resolution of two preliminary sets of questions...
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to North Carolina Dept. of Revenue v. Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust
The case involves the question of whether the district court can review the FCC order under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)If the order is the equivalent of an 'interpretive rule,' it may not be binding on a district court, and a district court therefore may not be required to adhere to it.
-
Why Procedural Due Process is relevant to North Carolina Dept. of Revenue v. Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust
The case discusses whether PDR had a 'prior' and 'adequate' opportunity for judicial review, which relates to procedural due process.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Second, did PDR have a 'prior' and 'adequate' opportunity to seek judicial review of the order?
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in North Carolina Dept. of Revenue v. Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust that support the summary and concepts above.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for that court to consider these preliminary issues.
The extent to which the 2006 FCC order binds the lower courts may depend on the resolution of two preliminary sets of questions.
If the order is the equivalent of an 'interpretive rule,' it may not be binding on a district court.
