Search for: "United States v. Scott Paper Company"
Results 141 - 152
of 152
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Aug 2020, 9:55 pm
This paper reviews some recent policy proposals including wealth taxes, minimum taxes, excess profits taxes, consumption taxes, and digital taxes. [read post]
14 Oct 2014, 5:29 am
Newman v. [read post]
19 May 2010, 4:36 pm
Circuit’s recent decision in Comcast v. [read post]
November 30, 2009 – Environmental Law Settlements, Decisions, Regulatory Actions and Lawsuit Filings
30 Nov 2009, 9:25 am
Click Here California Appeals Court Affirms Lower Court Holding in Goodrich v. [read post]
28 Jul 2021, 3:50 am
Compared to the rest of the world, the United States does not have a unique problem with tax evasion. [read post]
12 Oct 2021, 5:55 am
Source: Methodology derived from Council on State Taxation, “50-State Study and Report on Telecommunications Taxation,” May 2005; updated July 2021 from state statutes, FCC data, and local ordinances by Scott Mackey, Leonine Public Affairs LLP, Montpelier, VT. [read post]
21 Feb 2019, 10:47 am
Chris Hoofnagle, they chose opt-out to avoid the IMS v. [read post]
12 May 2020, 3:14 pm
An Australian law firm’s “Tips and tricks for online hearings” refers to a ruling by the Federal Court of Australia that a case with 50 witnesses that was scheduled for six weeks would proceed virtually, despite the objection of one of the parties (Capic v Ford Motor Company of Australia Limited (Adjournment)). [read post]
26 Jun 2022, 12:28 am
Note that I write this post during the public hearings for the January 6th Commission, which is faithfully documenting an attempted coup of the United States government that would not have been possible without a rampant populist fervor that continues to this day. [read post]
19 Aug 2022, 6:06 am
The distinction between aiding and agreeing sometimes looks sharper on paper than it does in practice. [read post]
29 Jul 2011, 5:23 pm
” See: Gomes v. [read post]
2 Jan 2011, 6:38 am
My ex-wife used to roll her eyes when I said, as one does, non haec in foedera veni [Lord Radcliffe in Davis Contractors Ltd v. [read post]
