green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
4.3 score
“under the step-transaction doctrine, a particular step in a transaction is disregarded for tax purposes if the taxpayer could have achieved its objective more directly, but instead included the step for no other purpose than to avoid u.s. taxes.”
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited "but see"
H.J. Heinz Co. & Subsidiaries v. United States
under the step-transaction doctrine, a particular step in a transaction is disregarded for tax purposes if the taxpayer could have achieved its objective more directly, but instead included the step for no other purpose than to avoid u.s. taxes.
discussed
Cited "see"
Ernest Brown v. Philadelphia Housing Authority
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See id. 17 Because these findings are essential to the maintenance of a class action, the Rule requires that "[a]s soon as practicable after the commencement of an action brought as a class action, the court shall determine by order whether it is to be so maintained." Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(1).
discussed
Cited "see"
Dash v. FIRSTPLUS HOME LOAN TRUST 1996-2
See generally Gibson v. Chrysler Corp., 261 F.3d 927, 941 (9th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1104 , 122 S.Ct. 903 , 151 L.Ed.2d 872 (2002) (discussing the practicality of considering claims of named class members only for purposes of amount in controversy).
cited
Cited "see"
Public Citizen Brotherhood of Teamsters, Auto and Truck Drivers, Local 70 California Labor Federation California Trucking Association Environmental Law Foundation International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Natural Resources Defense Council Planning and Conservation League, Petitioners-Intervenors v. Department of Transportation Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Nicholas R. Walsh, International Brotherhood of Teamsters Brotherhood of Teamsters, Auto and Truck Drivers, Local 70 California Labor Federation California Trucking Association Environmental Law Foundation Public Citizen, Natural Resources Defense Council Planning and Conservation League, Petitioners-Intervenors v. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Joseph M. Clapp Nicholas R. Walsh
See Nat'l Parks & Conservation Ass'n v. Babbitt, 241 F.3d 722 , 730 (9th Cir.2001) (citing 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4 ), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1104 , 122 S.Ct. 903 , 151 L.Ed.2d 872 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
Public Citizen v. Department of Transportation
See Nat’l Parks & Conservation Ass’n v. Babbitt, 241 F.3d 722, 730 (9th Cir.2001) (citing 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4 ), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1104 , 122 S.Ct. 903 , 151 L.Ed.2d 872 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
Davis v. Mineta
See Nat’l Parks & Conservation Ass’n v. Babbitt, 241 F.3d 722, 733-34 (9th Cir.2001) (quotations and footnote omitted), cert, denied, - U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 903 , 151 L.Ed.2d 872 (2002); Boomer Lake, 4 F.3d at 1556. 16 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Brady v. Mercedes-Benz USA, Inc.
District courts have diversity jurisdiction over all civil actions between citizens of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1382 ; see Gibson v. Chrysler Corp., 261 F.3d 927, 934 (9th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1104 , 122 S.Ct. 903 , 151 L.Ed.2d 872 (2002); Lee v. Am.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Holland America Line-Westours, Inc.
v.
National Parks and Conservation Assn.
v.
National Parks and Conservation Assn.
No. 01-456.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 14, 2002.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Citer courts: Federal Claims (1)
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.