green
Positive treatment
2.8 score
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Vickie Kansler v. Mississippi Department of Revenue
Ind. Aug. 20, 2001) ; see also American Target Advertising, Inc. v. Giani , 199 F.3d 1241 , 1254-55 (10th Cir.) (holding that because Quill and related cases "concern the levy of taxes upon out-of-state entities," they govern only the analysis of tax burdens) (emphasis in original), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 811 , 121 S.Ct. 34 , 148 L.Ed.2d 14 (2000) ; Ferndale Lab., Inc. v. Cavendish , 79 F.3d 488 , 494 (6th Cir.1996) (holding that because "virtually every precedent relied upon by the Court in deciding Quill was concerned with attempts by states to tax interstate commerce," Quill applies only i…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Xcaliber International Ltd. v. Ieyoub
Aug.20, 2001); see also American Target Advertising, Inc. v. Giani, 199 F.3d 1241, 1254-55 (10th Cir.) (holding that because Quill and related cases “concern the levy of taxes upon out-of-state entities,” they govern only the analysis of tax burdens) (emphasis in original), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 811 , 121 S.Ct. 34 , 148 L.Ed.2d 14 (2000); Ferndale Lab., Inc. v. Cavendish, 79 F.3d 488 , 494 (6th Cir.1996) (holding that because “virtually every precedent relied upon by the Court in deciding Quill was concerned with attempts by states to tax interstate commerce,” Quill applies only if a …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Arctic King Fisheries, Inc. v. United States
Yet, individuals operating in highly regulated fields do not forfeit their rights under the Fifth Amendment to the whim of whatever regulation the winds may bring — “[t]he mere fact of regulation ... does not signify that an investor can never form a reasonable expectation of a return on his investment.” American Pelagic I, 49 Fed.Cl. at 49; see also District Intown Properties, L.P. v. District of Columbia, 198 F.3d 874, 886-87 (D.C.Cir.1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 812 , 121 S.Ct. 34 , 148 L.Ed.2d 14 (2000) (Williams, J. concurring).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. McCoy
Ticchiarelli, 171 F.3d at 32-33 ; see also United States v. Hass, 199 F.3d 749, 753 (5th Cir.1999) (“[W]hether a defendant waived an issue for consideration at resen-tencing is determined by whether the defendant had an incentive to raise that issue in the prior proceedings.”), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 812 , 121 S.Ct. 34 , 148 L.Ed.2d 14 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. McCoy, JoAnn
This approach requires a fact-intensive, case-by-case analysis. 62 Ticchiarelli, 171 F.3d at 32-33 ; see also United States v. Hass, 199 F.3d 749, 753 (5th Cir.1999) ("[W]hether a defendant waived an issue for consideration at resentencing is determined by whether the defendant had an incentive to raise that issue in the prior proceedings."), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 812 , 121 S.Ct. 34 , 148 L.Ed.2d 14 (2000).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Hass
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 99-1694.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 2, 2000.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-rari denied.