Which case is cited as the business purpose doctrine: Gregory v. Helvering or Ableman v. Booth?
e35aa302abb3e9227058d3e9412bea26
Gregory v. Helvering Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465 (1935), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court concerned with U.S. income tax law. The case is cited as part of the basis for two legal doctrines: the business purpose doctrine and the doctrine of substance over form. The business purpose doctrine is essentially that where a transaction has no substantial business purpose other than the tax avoidance and tax evasion|avoidance or reduction]] of Federal tax, the tax law will not regard the transaction. The doctrine of substance over form is essentially that, for Federal tax purposes, a taxpayer is bound by the economic substance of a transaction where the economic substance varies from its legal form.
04bae0d608a7c773c9ca819571936348
Ableman v. Booth Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that State courts cannot issue rulings on federal law that contradict the decisions of federal courts, overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. The Supreme Court held that under the Constitution, the federal courts have the final power to decide cases arising under the Constitution and federal statutes, and that the States do not have the power to overturn those decisions. Thus, Wisconsin did not have the authority to nullify federal judgments or statutes.
4a48cbb5a37048faebedd2bae4c76929
In re Amway Corp. In re Amway Corp. (93 F.T.C. 618; full name In the Matter of Amway Corporation, Inc., et al.) is a 1979 ruling by the United States Federal Trade Commission concerning the business practices of Amway, a multi-level marketing (MLM) company. The FTC ruled that Amway was not an illegal pyramid scheme according strictly to the statutory definition of a pyramid scheme, but ordered Amway to cease price fixing and cease misrepresenting to its distributors (participants) the average participant's likelihood of success in the multi-level marketing model.
3187c3072363e4ba60b40261ac6df2bd
Daimler AG v. Bauman Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. ___ (2014) , is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court answered whether an American court may exercise jurisdiction over a foreign company based on the fact that a subsidiary of the company acts on its behalf in the jurisdictional state. The court held that an American company cannot be sued for conduct occurring outside the United States and American courts do not have jurisdiction of such a claim.<ref name="http://www.forbes.com"> </ref>
5047f615f9ddf5d8d911a5bc92f80afd
Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co. Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, 500 U.S. 614 (1991) , was a United States Supreme Court case which held that peremptory challenges may not be used to exclude jurors on the basis of race in civil trials. "Edmonson" extended the court's similar decision in "Batson v. Kentucky" (1986), a criminal case. The Court applied the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as determined in "Bolling v. Sharpe" (1954), in finding that such race-based challenges violated the Constitution.
98967d08f619f0f06099c8eb06e0cd25
Egbert v. Lippmann Egbert v. Lippmann, 104 U.S. 333 (1881), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that public use of an invention bars the patenting of it. The Court's ruling was colored by its view that the inventor had forfeited his right to patent the invention by "sleeping on his rights" while others commercialized the technology.
bccdb66aa77479a9af32bd4745f0a40b
Exigent circumstance An exigent circumstance, in the criminal procedure law of the United States, allows law enforcement, under certain circumstances, to enter a structure without a search warrant or, if they have a "knock and announce" warrant, without knocking and waiting for refusal. It must be a situation where people are in imminent danger, evidence faces imminent destruction, or a suspect's imminent escape. Once entry is obtained, the plain view doctrine applies, allowing the seizure of any evidence or contraband discovered in the course of actions consequent upon the exigent circumstances.
22937c4fb5a0a1c2151947e4c326d5ae
Button-Fastener case The Button-Fastener" Case, Heaton-Peninsular Button-Fastener Co. v. Eureka Specialty Co., also known as the Peninsular Button-Fastener" Case, was for a time a highly influential decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Many courts of appeals, and the United States Supreme Court in the "A.B. Dick case" adopted its "inherency doctrine"—"the argument that, since the patentee may withhold his patent altogether from public use, he must logically and necessarily be permitted to impose any conditions which he chooses upon any use which he may allow of it." In 1917, however, the Supreme Court expressly overruled the "Button-Fastener" Case and the "A.B. Dick" case, in the "Motion Picture Patents" case.
42c31e0c59576854e269f33dddf0e8bf
United States v. Cors United States v. Cors, , was a United States Supreme Court case interpreting the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 and the Takings clause of the 5th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
0aeae5e7cff08b285d582e70c7cdfeab
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (1920) , was a U.S. Supreme Court Case in which Silverthorne attempted to evade paying taxes. Federal agents illegally seized tax books from Silverthorne and created copies of the records. The issue in this case is whether or not derivatives of illegal evidence are permissible in court. The ruling, delivered by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., was that to permit derivatives would encourage police to circumvent the Fourth Amendment, so the illegal copied evidence was held tainted and inadmissible. This precedent later became known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine," and is an extension of the exclusionary rule.
46b845df7f94292038efcbef2d60a95c
Ware &amp; Leland v. Mobile County Ware & Leland v. Mobile County, 209 U.S. 405 (1908) , is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that contracts for the sales of cotton for future delivery that do not oblige interstate shipments are not subjects of interstate commerce. The Court also held that a state tax on persons engaged in buying and selling cotton for future delivery was not a regulation of interstate commerce, and that the imposition of the tax was not beyond the power of the state.
c013d5b435d087fb30e7fcf656e61009
Wilkie v. Robbins Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U.S. 537 (2007) , was a United States Supreme Court case that concerned the scope of qualified immunity for government officials working in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Specifically, the Supreme Court held that BLM employees could not be liable for an alleged retaliation claim against Robbins, a farm owner, because other avenues for relief were available. Though these workers may have been tough in negotiations with Robbins over access over his land, none of that rose to the level of a constitutional violation.
6fdac44f07294129d38bb2dd93411302
Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp. Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp. is an intellectual property law case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed-in-part and vacated-in-part the previous ruling of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Brown Bag Software sued Symantec Corporation and John L. Friend, an individual software developer for Softworks Development, for copyright infringement and several state law claims regarding the similarity of Symantec Corporation's and Brown Bag Software's computer outlining programs.
c780285138c432c6202a86b55d4aa3f9
Taylor v. Standard Gas &amp; Electric Co. Taylor v. Standard Gas and Electric Company, 306 U.S. 307 (1939) , was an important United States Supreme Court case in United States corporate law that laid down the "Deep Rock doctrine" as a rule of bankruptcy and corporate law. This holds that claims, as creditors, upon an insolvent subsidiary company by controlling shareholders or other insiders, like managers or directors, will be subordinated to the claims of all other creditors.
36481c245ef8ed56c08cb0e92ad56542
Bradwell v. Illinois Bradwell v. State of Illinois, 83 U.S. 130 (1873), was a United States Supreme Court case that solidified the narrow reading of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and determined that the right to practice a profession was not among these privileges. The case is also notable for being an early 14th Amendment challenge to sex discrimination in the United States.
f4362830352276ed7739e2efeaf56566
Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States Marvin Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, 572 U.S. ___ (2014) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a railroad right-of-way granted under the General Railroad Right-of-Way Act of 1875 is an easement. Therefore, when a railroad abandons such a right-of-way, the easement disappears, and the land owner regains unburdened use of the land.
1b565e991f463c3cff3d5ea799e3e8a1
Cotman v Brougham Cotman v Brougham [1918] AC 514 is UK company law case concerning the objects clause of a company, and the problems involving the "ultra vires" doctrine. It held that a clause stipulating the courts should not read long lists of objects as subordinate to one another was valid.
712525e63bff69a815f9bcd9931156f9
Instance Cause An Instance Cause was a type of legal process in the English church courts. Legal action in these ecclesiastical courts was either instigated as an Instance Cause or an Office Cause (Office Jurisdiction). An Instance Cause was pursued by a particular plaintiff against a particular defendant whilst in an Office Cause the court acted as plaintiff. Instance causes were taken between parties in marital disputes, or between members of a community in pew disputes or defamation litigation.
8c473a516b0abab969fa3dd3691626cd
Parker v. Brown Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943) , was a United States Supreme Court case on the scope of US antitrust law. It held that actions taken by state governments were exempt from the scope of the Sherman Act.
8b8f275808c0e615b34baa9ade7cb9c2
Phillips v. AWH Corp. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005), was a case decided by the Federal Circuit that clarified the hierarchy of evidentiary sources usable for claim construction in patent law.
d8883f374b376657269ee05e6c0a6e63
FTC v. Actavis, Inc. FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 570 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 2223 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that the FTC could make an antitrust challenge under the rule of reason against a so-called pay-for-delay agreement, also referred to as a reverse payment patent settlement. Such an agreement is one in which a drug patentee pays another company, ordinarily a generic drug manufacturer, to stay out of the market, thus avoiding generic competition and a challenge to patent validity. The FTC sought to establish a rule that such agreements were presumptively illegal, but the Court ruled only that the FTC could bring a case under more general antitrust principles permitting a defendant to assert justifications for its actions under the rule of reason.
bed3b62efcba49a3d49d6ccc25147961
Shelter rule The shelter rule is a doctrine in the common law of property under which a grantee who has received an interest in property from a bona fide purchaser will also be protected as a bona fide purchaser, even if the grantee would not legally qualify for this status. The grantee is "sheltered" from other claims by the grantor's status as an actual bona fide purchaser.