Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Jarkesy – which was decided the day prior and limited the ability of agencies to impose penalties through internal tribunals instead of jury trial in court – were seen as cumulation of the current Supreme Court's efforts to weaken the administrative state as part of a conservative agenda against big government. [21] [22]
New York v. Trump is a civil investigation and lawsuit by the office of the New York Attorney General (AG) alleging that individuals and business entities within the Trump Organization engaged in financial fraud by presenting vastly disparate property values to potential lenders and tax officials, in violation of New York Executive Law § 63(12).
Marrita Murphy and Daniel J. Leveille, Appellants v. Internal Revenue Service and United States of America, Appellees (commonly known as Murphy v.IRS), [1] is a tax case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit originally held that the taxation of emotional distress awards by the federal government is unconstitutional.
As of 2018, the Supreme Court had overruled more than 300 of its own cases. [1] The longest period between the original decision and the overruling decision is 136 years, for the common law Admiralty cases Minturn v. Maynard, 58 U.S. (17 How.) 476 decision in 1855, overruled by the Exxon Corp. v. Central Gulf Lines Inc., 500 U.S. 603 decision ...
Nike's irrevocable promise not to enforce its trademark against its competitor mooted the competitor's lawsuit to invalidate the trademark. Smith v. United States (2013) 11-8976: 2013-01-09 A defendant bears the burden of proving a defense of withdrawal from conspiracy. Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida: 11-626: 2013-01-15
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously determined that an injunction should not be automatically issued based on a finding of patent infringement, but also that an injunction should not be denied simply on the basis that the plaintiff does not practice the patented invention. [1]
Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990) When a family has requested the termination of life-sustaining treatments for their vegetative relative, the state may constitutionally oppose this request if there is a lack of evidence of a clear earlier wish by said relative. Washington v.
Attorney General v Blake [2000] UKHL 45, [2001] 1 AC 268 is a leading English contract law case on damages for breach of contract. It established that in some circumstances, where ordinary remedies are inadequate, restitutionary damages may be awarded.