Ads
related to: fiduciary case law examples in pennsylvania real estate tax rebatelegal.thomsonreuters.com has been visited by 10K+ users in the past month
- Start Your Free Trial
Access a Free Trial of Westlaw
Precision to Research Faster.
- Explore Westlaw Precision
The Latest Evolution in Legal
Research. Speed Meets Precision.
- Read Our White Paper
Address The Growing Skills Gap In
Global Trade Management
- New Features
View First-of-Their-Kind Tools to
More Efficiently Conduct Research.
- Start Your Free Trial
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Supreme Court of the United States has heard numerous cases in the area of tax law. This is an incomplete list of those cases. ... Pennsylvania: 97 U.S. 566 (1878 ...
This category contains articles regarding case law decided by the courts of Pennsylvania. Pages in category "Pennsylvania state case law" The following 34 pages are in this category, out of 34 total.
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an ordinance requiring door-to-door salespersons ("solicitors") to purchase a license was an unconstitutional tax on religious exercise.
This case supports the doctrine of U.S. income tax law that a seller of property subject to a nonrecourse debt (as opposed to a recourse debt where the seller may remain liable for any unsatisfied balance remaining after the transfer) realizes an amount that includes the debt assumed by the purchaser. This is an important concept because a ...
Bristol and West Building Society v Mothew [1996] EWCA Civ 533 is a leading English fiduciary law and professional negligence case, concerning a solicitor's duty of care and skill, and the nature of fiduciary duties. The case is globally cited for its definition of a fiduciary and the circumstances in which a fiduciary relationship arises.
The Rule in Shelley's Case is a rule of law that may apply to certain future interests in real property and trusts created in common law jurisdictions. [1]: 181 It was applied as early as 1366 in The Provost of Beverly's Case [1]: 182 [2] but in its present form is derived from Shelley's Case (1581), [3] in which counsel stated the rule as follows:
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that whether a regulatory act constitutes a taking requiring compensation depends on the extent of diminution in the value of the property. [1] The decision thereby started the doctrine of regulatory taking.
Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878) was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that a state court can only exert personal jurisdiction over a party domiciled out-of-state if that party is served with process while physically present within the state.