Search for: "Phillips v. Commissioner" Results 81 - 100 of 272
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Mar 2023, 8:25 am by Daniel Gilman
  With Wilson’s departure, and that of Commissioner Noah Phillips in October 2022 (I wrote about that here, and I recommend Alden Abbott’s post on Noah Phillips’ contribution to the 1-800 Contacts case), we’ll have a strictly partisan commission—one lacking any Republican commissioners or, indeed, anyone who might properly be described as a moderate or mainstream antitrust lawyer or economist. [read post]
12 Jun 2011, 12:59 pm by Blog Editorial
Phillip Tillet v The Queen (Belize), heard 9 June 2011. [read post]
26 Jun 2011, 11:27 am by Blog Editorial
Phillip Tillet v The Queen (Belize), heard 9 June 2011. [read post]
9 May 2011, 2:03 am by Blog Editorial
There are two appeals in the Privy Council this week to be heard by Lords Phillips, Brown, Mance, Kerr and Dyson. [read post]
3 Apr 2011, 11:31 pm by Blog Editorial
Second, on 6 and 7 April 2011, Lords Phillips, Rodger, Walker, Mance and Clarke will hear Jivraj v Hashwani. [read post]
19 Mar 2012, 3:26 am by Laura Sandwell, Matrix.
Humphreys v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, heard 14 – 15 March 2012. [read post]
26 Mar 2012, 8:31 am by Laura Sandwell, Matrix.
Humphreys v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, heard 14 – 15 March 2012. [read post]
6 Jun 2018, 8:36 am by Elizabeth Clark
Quoting West Virginia Board of Education v. [read post]
19 Mar 2017, 5:05 pm by INFORRM
” We had a post from Angela Phillips. [read post]
8 Jun 2021, 1:30 pm by Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Both Commissioners also reference the Supreme Court’s recent decision in AMG Capital Mgmt., LLC v. [read post]
12 Jul 2017, 4:15 pm by INFORRM
The basis of the order requiring Facebook to identify TVO was the decision of the House of Lords in Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133, [1973] UKHL 6 (26 June 1973); but it “is a power which for good reasons must be sparingly used” (Megaleasing v Barrett (No 2) [1993] ILRM 497, 503 (Finlay CJ). [read post]