Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The ruling does not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron doctrine, Roberts wrote. Here is a look at the court's decision and the implications for government regulations going ...
Unanimous decision on when a taxpayer sells or disposes of property encumbered by a nonrecourse obligation exceeding the fair market value of the property sold, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue may require him to include in the “amount realized” the outstanding amount of the obligation; the fair market value of the property is ...
In two related cases, the fishermen asked the court to overturn the 40-year-old Chevron doctrine, which stems from a unanimous Supreme Court case involving the energy giant in a dispute over the Clean Air Act. That ruling said judges should defer to the executive branch when laws passed by Congress are ambiguous.
The decision articulated a doctrine known as "Chevron deference". [2] Chevron deference consisted of a two-part test that was deferential to government agencies: first, whether Congress has spoken directly to the precise issue at question, and second, "whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute".
The Chevron decision essentially gave federal agencies the authority to issue rules to implement laws that weren't clear. And that deference to the executive branch has enabled presidential ...
After 40 years, the Supreme Court overturns its landmark 'Chevron' ruling, but are the implications for healthcare and environmental regulations good or bad news for businesses and consumers?
The ruling does not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron doctrine, he added. Cara Horowitz, an environmental law professor and executive director of the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at UCLA School of Law, said the decision “takes more tools out of the toolbox of federal regulators.”
Under the common law, real estate can be jointly owned at a given time. [16] In most states, in a tenancy in common, co-tenants each have a theoretical right to possess the whole property. [16] Co-tenants must also share rents received from third-parties, as well as upkeep expenses and taxes. [16]