In the case of Scripto, Inc. v. Carson, Sheriff et al., 1959, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a state could impose use tax collection responsibilities on an out-of-state company if it had salespeople soliciting orders within its borders. The Florida-based pen company Scripto used independent contractors to solicit orders in Georgia and then shipped goods from Florida into Georgia for delivery to customers there. When Georgia imposed a use tax (a type of excise tax) on these transactions and required Scripto to collect this from their customers, Scripto argued that they were not obligated as they did not have sufficient presence or 'nexus' in the state. However, the court held that even though these salespeople were technically independent contractors rather than employees of Scripto, their activities still constituted enough business presence or nexus for Georgia's imposition of a use-tax-collection duty to be valid under both Due Process Clause and Commerce Clause principles.

In the dissenting opinion for Scripto, Inc., v. Carson, Sheriff et al., Justice Whittaker argued that the majority's decision expanded the definition of "doing business" in a state too broadly and without clear precedent. He contended that using independent contractors to solicit orders did not constitute sufficient contact with Florida to justify imposing its tax laws on an out-of-state corporation like Scripto. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential implications for interstate commerce if every state were allowed to impose their tax laws on corporations simply because they used local contractors within those states. In his view, this could lead to multiple taxation and hinder free trade among states.