170 L. Ed. 2d at 87 cited at this page1 citing case
- Meijer, Inc. v. Ferring B.V., 903 F. Supp. 2d 198 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).published Id. at 87-88.
170 L. Ed. 2d at 98 cited at this page1 citing case
- Cornett v. Johnson & Johnson, 48 A.3d 1041 (N.J. 2012).published Id. at 98.
128 S. Ct. at 1175 cited at this page1 citing case
- United States v. Kottwitz, 614 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2010).published The requisite acts must be considered under “the objective economic realities of a transaction rather than ... the particular form the parties employed.” Boulware, 552 U.S. at 429 , 128 S.Ct. at 1175 (quotation marks and citation omitted).
128 S. Ct. at 1180 Establishing elements of return of capital theory1 citing case
- United States v. Boulware, 558 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 2009).published The Supreme Court reversed Boulware II, holding that the Miller rule upon which the panel was required to rely was incorrect, and concluding that a defendant could establish a return of capital or assert the return of capital theory withou…
“The colorful behavior described in the allegations requires a reminder that tax classifications like ‘dividend’ and 'return of capital’ turn on ‘the objective economic realities of a transaction rather than ... the particular form the parties employed.’”
- Combs v. Roark Amusement & Vending, L.P., 422 S.W.3d 632 (Tex. 2013).published“The colorful behavior described in the allegations requires a reminder that tax classifications like ‘dividend’ and 'return of capital’ turn on ‘the objective economic realities of a transaction rather than ... the par…”
- David E. Watson, Pc v. United States, 757 F. Supp. 2d 877 (S.D. Iowa 2010).published“The colorful behavior described in the allegations requires a reminder that tax classifications like ‘dividend’ and ‘return of capital’ turn on ‘the objective economic realities of a transaction rather than ... the par…”
- David E. Watson, P.C. v. United States, 714 F. Supp. 2d 954 (S.D. Iowa 2010).published“The colorful behavior described in the allegations requires a reminder that tax classifications like ‘dividend’ and ‘return of capital’ turn on ‘the objective economic realities of a transaction rather than ... the par…”
Other citing cases
- Arguelles-Olivares v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 171 (5th Cir. 2008).published
- Zimmerman v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 889 F. Supp. 2d 757 (D. Md. 2012).published
- Jerry Markadonatos v. Vill. of Woodridge, 760 F.3d 545 (7th Cir. 2014).published
- New York State Restaurant Ass'n v. New York City Bd. of Health, 556 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2009).published
v.
Kent
Per Curiam
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash- ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
[*~441–442]_________________
No. 06–1498 _________________
WARNER-LAMBERT CO., LLC, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. KIMBERLY KENT ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
[March 3, 2008]
PER CURIAM. The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.