Search for: "TAXPAYERS OF MICHIGAN V STATE OF MICHIGAN "
Results 121 - 140
of 230
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Feb 2011, 6:41 am
In recent years, the Court granted such immediate review in 2002 in the University of Michigan undergraduate admissions standards case (Gratz v. [read post]
14 Oct 2010, 11:36 am
Court Cases At a time when states are making tough choices about budget cuts, opportunistic politicians are wasting taxpayer dollars on a frivolous lawsuit that is bound to fail. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 5:55 pm
Clearly, a local school board does not need to demonstrate a compelling state interest every time it spends a taxpayer’s money in ways the taxpayer finds abhorrent. [read post]
15 Feb 2011, 6:27 am
Michigan industry isn't protected by Michigan's friendly pro-preemption law: such companies still get sued elsewhere and subjected to bad state law elsewhere, while are still protected by the Michigan law even if they're located out of state. [read post]
2 Nov 2009, 7:11 am
The specific question is whether a state taxpayer may sue the state in a U.S. court if the taxpayer seeks to contest the fairness of tax breaks that others get but the challenger does not. [read post]
17 Feb 2012, 12:01 am
(Michigan). [read post]
14 Jan 2008, 4:41 am
In Allied-Signal, the taxpayer was a Delaware corporation domiciled in Michigan with some operations in New Jersey. [read post]
23 Apr 2020, 11:49 am
In 2016, Plaintiffs sued several Michigan state officials, who they say are responsible for these abysmal conditions in their schools. [read post]
7 Oct 2010, 2:23 pm
The ruling came in the case of Thomas More Law Center, et al., v. [read post]
17 Jun 2021, 5:01 am
The plaintiffs in the case, Paepcke v. [read post]
25 Feb 2010, 8:08 am
Re-listed case that was originally on the Petitions to Watch list for the conference of October 9, 2009: Title: Michigan v. [read post]
30 Mar 2010, 9:13 am
Rev. 867, 877 (1994) (In 1791, “[e]very state limited jury service to men; every state except Vermont restricted jury service to property owners or taxpayers; three states permitted only whites to serve; and one state, Maryland, disqualified atheists”); Taylor v. [read post]
2 Mar 2022, 2:33 pm
The United States, as incarnated in its Chief Executive and as articulated in his State of the Union, suggests this process of aging. [read post]
14 Jan 2012, 9:00 am
Introduction Depending on how the Court resolves a threshold issue, United States v. [read post]
3 Mar 2008, 7:05 am
(CSX Transportation v. [read post]
10 Sep 2014, 9:00 am
Arizona State Legislature v. [read post]
12 Mar 2012, 6:40 am
Bollinger, the challenge to the University of Michigan’s undergraduate admissions policy, emphasizes that Abigail Fisher – the petitioner in Fisher v. [read post]
13 Aug 2013, 1:15 pm
Cheney v. [read post]
7 Nov 2009, 3:40 pm
Cuomo v. [read post]
14 Jan 2011, 10:07 am
Michigan Department of Treasury, et al.Docket: 10-481Issue(s): Whether the state courts below properly held that a state tax law having indefinite retroactive reach with respect to tax refunds otherwise available under state law satisfies due process even when applied to deny refunds owed to a taxpayer from the preceding five-year period.Certiorari stage documents:Opinion below (Michigan Court of Appeals)Petition for certiorariBrief in… [read post]
