Ad
related to: cta case no 8607 u m d 9 4 6
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
An anti-money laundering law called the Corporate Transparency Act, or CTA, is now back in action after a Dec. 23 court ruling that will require millions of small business owners to register with ...
Hence, the CTA is now composed of one Presiding Justice and eight Associate Justices. The CTA may sit en banc or in three divisions with each division consisting of three justices. The CTA, as one of the courts comprising the Philippine Judiciary, is under the supervision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines .
In the 1977 case Abood v.Detroit Board of Education, the Supreme Court upheld the maintaining of a union shop in a public workplace. Public school teachers in Detroit had sought to overturn the requirement that they pay fees equivalent to union dues on the grounds that they opposed public sector collective bargaining and objected to the ideological activities of the union.
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Seagram & Sons, Inc. , 340 U.S. 211 (1951) Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp. , 467 U.S. 752 (1984), is a major US antitrust law case decided by the Supreme Court concerning the Pittsburgh firm Copperweld Corporation and the Chicago firm Independence Tube. [ 1 ]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA - - - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-VS ...
6. The Defendant is a unit of local government within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 5309(b). 7. From 2002 to the present, the City has been the recipient of Community Development Block Grant funds from HUD, pursuant to the Housing and Community Development Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5301 et seq. Those federal funds were issued to fund programs of the ...
The US Supreme Court held that the tax was lawful. Holmes J dissented on reasoning, not result, joined by Brandeis J.. The plaintiff's reliance is upon Allgeyer v.Louisiana, 165 U. S. 578, 17 S. Ct. 427, 41 L. Ed. 832, in which it was held that a fine could not be imposed by the State for sending a notice similar to the present to an insurance company out of the State.
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), is a US employment law case by the United States Supreme Court regarding the burdens and nature of proof in proving a Title VII case and the order in which plaintiffs and defendants present proof. It was the seminal case in the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.