Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In 2002, the California Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) started the Second-Generation Electronic Filing Specification (2GEFS) project. [5]After a $200,000 consultant's report declared the project ready for a final push, the Judicial Council of California scrapped the program in 2012 after $500 million in costs.
From the taxpayer's standpoint, the advantage of bringing a dispute to the Tax Court is that payment of the deficiencies is stayed until the case is decided. [4] While the Tax Court is headquartered in Washington, D.C., its 19 judges hear cases in about 80 cities throughout the U.S. (See also Article I and Article III tribunals).
Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt (short: Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt or Hyatt III), [1] 587 U.S. 230 (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that unless they consent, states have sovereign immunity from private suits filed against them in the courts of another state.
The California Supreme Court has invalidated ballot measures after ruling them illegal constitutional revisions at least twice before: In 1948, the court removed a massive ballot measure that ...
International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that a party, particularly a corporation, may be subject to the jurisdiction of a state court if it has "minimum contacts" with that state. [1]
The states' lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., claims that Musk — under the banner of the Department of Government Efficiency, which President Trump created unilaterally ...
Charles and Kathleen Moore of Redmond, Washington State, are the plaintiffs in this case. In 2005, the couple invested $40,000 to buy a 13% stake in KisanKraft, a manufacturing business based in ...
Washington), commonly known as the McCleary Decision, [1] was a lawsuit against the State of Washington. The case alleged that the state, in the body of the state legislature, had failed to meet the state constitutional duty (in Article IX, Section 1) "to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders." [2]