Victorian Supreme Court Library Journals, Law Reports & Legislation
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
In Late Colonial India: 1942-1944
Rohit De ([email protected]) LEGS Seminar, March 2009 Draft. Please do not cite, quote, or circulate without permission. EMASCULATING THE EXECUTIVE: THE FEDERAL COURT AND CIVIL LIBERTIES IN LATE COLONIAL INDIA: 1942-1944 Rohit De1 On the 7th of September, 1944 the Chief Secretary of Bengal wrote an agitated letter to Leo Amery, the Secretary of State for India, complaining that recent decisions of the Federal Court were bringing the governance of the province to a standstill. “In war condition, such emasculation of the executive is intolerable”, he thundered2. It is the nature and the reasons for this “emasculation” that the paper hopes to uncover. This paper focuses on a series of confrontations between the colonial state and the colonial judiciary during the years 1942 to 1944 when the newly established Federal Court struck down a number of emergency wartime legislations. The courts decisions were unexpected and took both the colonial officials and the Indian public by surprise, particularly because the courts in Britain had upheld the legality of identical legislation during the same period. I hope use this episode to revisit the discussion on the rule of law in colonial India as well as literature on judicial behavior. Despite the prominence of this confrontation in the public consciousness of the 1940’s, its role has been downplayed in both historical and legal accounts. As I hope to show this is a result of a disciplinary divide in the historical engagement with law and legal institutions. Legal scholarship has defined the field of legal history as largely an account of constitutional and administrative developments paralleling political developments3. -
Law Journals: Submissions and Ranking Feedback to Stephanie Miller Explanation Ranking Methodology Combined Score Impact- Factor Currency-Factor
Law Journals: Submissions and Ranking Feedback to Stephanie Miller Explanation Ranking methodology Combined score Impact- factor Currency-factor All Subjects For Editorial R Co CaC Information I Jn C an mb se os A Select left, then All Countries F ls F English non- k . s t English 20 Multi Sep B 11 Jnl-name words arate then General Specialized older surveys C Check create Student-edited Peer-edited Refereed spreadsheet To submit Print Online-only articles to law journals Ranked Non-ranked Submit clear Submit via Rank (e.g. 15,17-25) LexOpus 0.33 ImpF-Weight (0..1) Combi Rank Journal ned 04- 11 1 Harvard Law Review 100 2 Columbia Law Review 85.8 3 The Yale Law Journal 80.3 4 Stanford Law Review 79.3 5 Michigan Law Review 69.5 6 California Law Review 67.2 7 University of Pennsylvania Law 66.6 Review 8 Texas Law Review 66.2 9 Virginia Law Review 65.6 10 Minnesota Law Review 63.9 11 UCLA Law Review 63.4 12 The Georgetown Law Journal 62.8 13 New York University Law 62.7 Review 14 Cornell Law Review 59.8 15 Northwestern University Law 59.7 Review 16 Fordham Law Review 59.5 17 Notre Dame Law Review 56.1 18 Vanderbilt Law Review 51.6 18 William and Mary Law Review 51.6 20 The University of Chicago Law 48.9 Review 21 Iowa Law Review 48.4 22 Boston University Law Review 47.2 23 Duke Law Journal 46.3 24 North Carolina Law Review 41 25 Emory Law Journal 40.7 26 Southern California Law 40.2 Review 27 Cardozo Law Review 39.6 28 Boston College Law Review 38.1 28 The George Washington Law 38.1 Review 30 UC Davis Law Review 36.9 31 Hastings Law Journal -
Supreme Court of India
Supreme Court of India drishtiias.com/printpdf/supreme-court-of-india The Supreme Court of India is the highest judicial court and the final court of appeal under the Constitution of India, the highest constitutional court, with the power of judicial review. India is a federal State and has a single and unified judicial system with three tier structure, i.e. Supreme Court, High Courts and Subordinate Courts. Brief History of the Supreme Court of India The promulgation of Regulating Act of 1773 established the Supreme Court of Judicature at Calcutta as a Court of Record, with full power & authority. It was established to hear and determine all complaints for any crimes and also to entertain, hear and determine any suits or actions in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. The Supreme Courts at Madras and Bombay were established by King George – III in 1800 and 1823 respectively. The India High Courts Act 1861 created High Courts for various provinces and abolished Supreme Courts at Calcutta, Madras and Bombay and also the Sadar Adalats in Presidency towns. These High Courts had the distinction of being the highest Courts for all cases till the creation of Federal Court of India under the Government of India Act 1935. The Federal Court had jurisdiction to solve disputes between provinces and federal states and hear appeal against Judgements from High Courts. After India attained independence in 1947, the Constitution of India came into being on 26 January 1950. The Supreme Court of India also came into existence and its first sitting was held on 28 January 1950. -
Volume 10 (2013) | ISSN 1932-1821 (Print) 1932-1996 (Online) DOI 10.5195/Taxreview.2013.18 |
Volume 10 (2013) | ISSN 1932-1821 (print) 1932-1996 (online) DOI 10.5195/taxreview.2013.18 | http://taxreview.law.pitt.edu This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. This journal is published by the University Library System of the University of Pittsburgh as part of its D-Scribe Digital Publishing Program, and is cosponsored by the University of Pittsburgh Press. PITTSBURGH TAX REVIEW Volume 10 Spring 2013 Issue 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLES WHEN ARE DAMAGES TAX FREE?: THE ELUSIVE MEANING OF “PHYSICAL INJURY” Ronald H. Jensen ................................................................... 87 ENTRY-LEVEL ENTREPRENEURS AND THE CHOICE-OF-ENTITY CHALLENGE Emily Ann Satterthwaite ...................................................... 139 NOTE AVOIDING DELEGATION DOCTRINE CHALLENGES TO INTERNET SALES TAX LEGISLATION: LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE MAIN STREET FAIRNESS ACT Michael J. Bouey ................................................................. 203 Pitt Tax Review | ISSN 1932-1821 (print) 1932-1996 (online) DOI 10.5195/taxreview.2013.18 | http://taxreview.law.pitt.edu i PITTSBURGH TAX REVIEW Volume 10 Spring 2013 Issue 2 2012 – 2013 EDITORIAL BOARD Senior Editors Michael J. Bouey Editor-in-Chief James Flannery Mirit Eyal-Cohen Anthony C. Infanti Faculty Editor Chief Faculty Editor Faculty Editor Sarah Martin John W. Kettering Executive Editor Production Editor Saheli Chakrabarty Ryan P. Hinsey Jeremiah Vandermark Notes Editor Articles Editors Jennifer Saint-Preux Sarah J. Ratzkin Research Editor Bluebook Editor Managing Editors Ashley Hileman Brian Fraile Sam Pangas Max Slater Kelly Smith Associate Editors Becky Armady Sung Un Kim Sean M. O’Rourke Patrick Carew Frank Kimmel Emily Osgood Jamie L. Davis Sarah Knerr Ryan Perlson Katelyn M. -
SAMPLE Content Directory
SAMPLE Nearly 1,300 Journals Content Directory Participating! http://heinonline.org Please Note: This is a list of ALL content available in our two main library modules through the HeinOnline interface. Due to the various subscription packages available, access to this content may vary. TABLE OF CONTENTS: Law Journal Library ..................................................................................................................................... pp. 1-25 Legal Classics Library................................................................................................................................. pp. 26-56 LAW JOURNAL LIBRARY VOLUMES YEARS Acta Juridica 1958-2003 1958-2003 Acta Universitatis Lucian Blaga 2001-2005 2001-2005 Adelaide Law Review 1-24 1960-2003 Administrative Law Journal of the American University† 1-10 1987-1996 Administrative Law Review (ABA) 1-57 1949-2005 Advocate: A Weekly Law Journal† 1-2 1888-1890 African Human Rights Law Journal 1-3 2001-2003 African Journal of Legal Studies 1 2004-2005 Air Force Law Review 1-58 1959-2006 Air Law Review † 1-12 1930-1941 Akron Law Review 1-38 1967-2005 Akron Tax Journal 1-21 1983-2006 Alabama Law Journal (Birmingham) † 1-5 1925-1930 Alabama Law Journal (Montgomery) † 1-4 1882-1885 Alabama Law Review *JUST UPDATED* 1-57 1948-2006 Alaska Law Review 1-22 1984-2005 Albany Law Environmental Outlook Journal 1-10 1995-2005 Albany Law Journal † 1-70 1870-1909 Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology 1-15 1991-2005 Albany Law Review 1-69 1931-2006 Alberta Law Quarterly -
Print This Article
Volume 17 (2020) | ISSN 1932-1821 (print) 1932-1996 (online) DOI 10.5195/taxreview.2020.114 | http://taxreview.law.pitt.edu PRIVATE OPERATING FOUNDATION REFORM AND J. PAUL GETTY Khrista McCarden This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. This journal is published by the University Library System of the University of Pittsburgh as part of its D-Scribe Digital Publishing Program, and is cosponsored by the University of Pittsburgh Press. PRIVATE OPERATING FOUNDATION REFORM AND J. PAUL GETTY Khrista McCarden* INTRODUCTION The Tax Reform Act of 1969 (“the 1969 Act”) established an arcane form of charitable organization called the private operating foundation.1 Essentially, a private operating foundation is a charitable organization exempt from income tax that in a hierarchical sense is situated between what is known as a public charity and a traditional private foundation. In other words, it is not publicly supported, as are public charities, and thus it is a private foundation; however, it does more than just make grants.2 This form has been subject to countless abuses3 and reform is necessary, especially in the context of private operating foundations that operate art museums (“private art museums”). A recent New York Times article reported that many perceive the ability of wealthy art donors to maintain control over artwork while also receiving tax benefits for varying degrees of public benefit as unfair.4 It is widely accepted that one of the fundamental policies underlying our federal tax system is the notion of fairness.5 Private art museums raise * Hoffman F. -
Volume 18 (2021) | ISSN 1932-1821 (Print) 1932-1996 (Online) DOI 10.5195/Taxreview.2021.137 |
Volume 18 (2021) | ISSN 1932-1821 (print) 1932-1996 (online) DOI 10.5195/taxreview.2021.137 | http://taxreview.law.pitt.edu This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. This journal is published by the University Library System of the University of Pittsburgh as part of its D-Scribe Digital Publishing Program, and is cosponsored by the University of Pittsburgh Press. PITTSBURGH TAX REVIEW Volume 18 Spring 2021 Issue 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS REFORMING THE U.S. INTERNATIONAL TAX REGIME Thinking Like a Source State in a Digital Economy Yariv Brauner………..…………………………..................225 The 2021 Corporate Transparency Act: The Next Frontier of U.S. Tax Transparency and Data Debates Diane Ring………………………………………………….249 The Quasi-Global GILTI Tax Susan C. Morse……………………………………………..273 Corporate Tax: Renewed Fiscal Federalism in the USA, the EU, and Globally for the 21st Century Tracy A. Kaye & Michel De Wolf.….………………………301 Beyond the “Made in America Tax Plan”: GILTI and International Tax Cooperation’s Next Golden Age Steven A. Dean……………………...………………….…...341 NOTE NIL Bills—An Examination of the Implications of Compensating College Athletes Under Name, Image, and Likeness Legislation Brian P. Bunner……………..……………………….……..355 Pitt Tax Review | ISSN 1932-1821 (print) 1932-1996 (online) DOI 10.5195/taxreview.2021.137 | http://taxreview.law.pitt.edu i PITTSBURGH TAX REVIEW Volume 18 Spring 2021 Issue 2 2020 – 2021 EDITORIAL BOARD Senior Editors Anthony C. Infanti Chief Faculty Editor Philip Hackney Alice L. Stewart Faculty Editor Faculty Editor Charles Gallmeyer Michaela Quinlan Editor-in-Chief Executive Editor Brenton Sige Luke Shamy Trevor Handlovitch Articles Editor Michael Stafford Notes Editor Bluebook Editors Managing Editors Andrew Calve Michael Mawhinney Associate Editors Carly Bellini Amy Conroy Samuel DeStefano Danielle Harrington Danielle Jacobs Jesse D. -
Auer/Seminole Rock Deference in the Tax Court
Florida State University College of Law Scholarship Repository Scholarly Publications 2013 Auer/Seminole Rock Deference in the Tax Court Steve R. Johnson Florida State University College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/articles Part of the Administrative Law Commons, Taxation-Federal Commons, and the Tax Law Commons Recommended Citation Steve R. Johnson, Auer/Seminole Rock Deference in the Tax Court, 11 PITT. TAX REV. 1 (2013), Available at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/articles/235 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarly Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Volume 11 (2013) | ISSN 1932-1821 (print) 1932-1996 (online) DOI 10.5195/taxreview.2013.19 | http://taxreview.law.pitt.edu AUER/SEMINOLE ROCK DEFERENCE IN THE TAX COURT Steve R. Johnson This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. This journal is published by the University Library System of the University of Pittsburgh as part of its D-Scribe Digital Publishing Program, and is cosponsored by the University of Pittsburgh Press. ARTICLES AUER/SEMINOLE ROCK DEFERENCE IN THE TAX COURT Steve R. Johnson* Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................... 3 I. ASR Deference Generally ..................................................................... -
Learning from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Georgia State University ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University Political Science Dissertations Department of Political Science 5-9-2016 Extraterritorial Courts and States: Learning from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Harold Young Georgia State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/political_science_diss Recommended Citation Young, Harold, "Extraterritorial Courts and States: Learning from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council." Dissertation, Georgia State University, 2016. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/political_science_diss/40 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Political Science at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Political Science Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EXTRATERRITORIAL COURTS AND STATES: LEARNING FROM THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL by HAROLD AVNON YOUNG Under the Direction of Amy Steigerwalt, PhD ABSTRACT In 2015, South Africa withdrew from the International Criminal Court asserting United Nation’s Security Council bias in referring only African cases (Strydom October 15, 2015; Duggard 2013) and the United Kingdom reiterated a pledge to withdraw from the European Court of Human Rights, asserting that the court impinges on British sovereignty (Watt 2015). Both are examples of extraterritorial courts which are an important part of regional and global jurisprudence. To contribute to our understanding of the relationship between states and extraterritorial courts, I examine arguably the first and best example of an extraterritorial court, namely the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC). Drawing on 50 British Commonwealth states, this dissertation explores the factors influencing the decision to accede to an extraterritorial court and why some states subsequently opt to sever ties. -
ULS Front Matter Volume 17 Issue 1.Docx
Volume 17 (2020) | ISSN 1932-1821 (print) 1932-1996 (online) DOI 10.5195/taxreview.2020.115 | http://taxreview.law.pitt.edu This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. This journal is published by the University Library System of the University of Pittsburgh as part of its D-Scribe Digital Publishing Program, and is cosponsored by the University of Pittsburgh Press. PITTSBURGH TAX REVIEW Volume 17 Spring 2020 Issue 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS THE 1969 TAX REFORM ACT AND CHARITIES: FIFTY YEARS LATER SYMPOSIUM The 1969 Tax Reform Act and Charities: Fifty Years Later Philip Hackney ................................................................. 235 The Private Foundation Rules at Fifty: How Did We Get Them and Do They Meet Current Needs? James J. Fishman ............................................................. 247 The Private Foundation Excise Tax on Self-Dealing: Contours, Comparisons, and Character Ellen P. Aprill ................................................................... 297 The Five Percent Fig Leaf Ray D. Madoff .................................................................. 341 Foundation Regulation in Our Age of Impact Dana Brakman Reiser ....................................................... 357 Private Operating Foundation Reform and J. Paul Getty Khrista McCarden ............................................................ 387 Pitt Tax Review | ISSN 1932-1821 (print) 1932-1996 (online) DOI 10.5195/taxreview.2020.115 | http://taxreview.law.pitt.edu -
PHLF News Publication
Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation 1 Station Square, Suite 450 Pittsburgh, P 15219 -1134 www.phlf.org^ Address Service Requested Punusnno FoR THE MEMBERS oF THE PrrrseuRcH HISToRy s{ LANDMARKS FouNDATToN No. 150 August 1"998 Landmarks Assists Manchester and South Side in Obtaining $S Million Commirmenr Duquesne Light and Pl{C Bank, major corpora,te sponsors, utilize State tax-credit program to assist Pittsburgh neighborhoods In, this issue: TVfe are pleased to inform 5 W ou, -embe.s of major The Courthouse: grants to the South Side A Progress Local Development Report Company (SSLDC)and Manchester Citizens 10 (MCC), Corporation two Pittsburgh-and neighborhood organizations with whom we have worked Landmarks-Inspire f.or many years. As a result Main Street Participants of our technical assistance and their excellent proposals, Duquesne Light and PNC 20 Bank will provide Manchester Passing the Torch: Arensberg, t: and South Side, respectivel¡ Van Dusen, Hallen with funding commitments for ten years under the È Commonwealth of Pennsyl- vania's Department of Community and Economic Development Neighborhood Our Partners Comment PNC Bank is excited about thß iruestment oppor- Assistance Program/ Comprehensive tuníty. Tlrc strength of the partrærs-South Síd,e From lcft to rþht : Howard B. Slau4hter, Gouemor Rid,ge ß excited, about the role that the Service Program. Incal Deuelopment Company, the Pittsburgh Jr., director of P reseruation Seraices Neighborhood, Assistanc,e Program,/ Samuel A. McCullough, secretary Hßtory & lrtnd,marks Found,arion, and, Brashear Comprehensiue Senice Program nill play in our of the Department of Community and a,t Landmørlts; Mayor Tom Murphy; Association-in terms of their operating perfor- ongoing eforts to reaitalize the communiries in Economic Development (DCED), Sy Holzer, president of PNC Banh; mance and, historíc d,ed,ícation to improuing the the Píttsburgh regíon. -
Annual Report 2007-2008
The Supreme Court of India The Supreme Court of India ANNUAL REPORT 2007-2008 (Published by the Supreme Court of India) EDITORIAL COMMITTEE: For Official use Only Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran COPYRIGHT© 2008 : THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain Publisher : The Supreme Court of India All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be New Delhi-110001 reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted Website – http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, Book : Annual Report 2007-2008 photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior (Contents mainly relate to 1.10.2007 to permission in writing of the copyright owner. 30-09.2008) Printed at I G Printers Pvt. Ltd. Tel. No: 011-26810297, 26817927 Photography: J.S. Studio (Sudeep Jain) 9810220385 (M) CONTENTS PAGE S. DESCRIPTION NO. NOS. 1. Hon’ble Chief Justice of India & Hon’ble Judges of Supreme Court ................................................................................. 9 2. An overview .......................................................................................... 39 The History Supreme Court – At present Court Building Lawyers’ Chambers Supreme Court Museum Retired Hon’ble Chief Justices Retired Hon’ble Judges 3. Jurisdiction .......................................................................................... 49 Original Appellate Advisory Review Curative Public Interest Litigation 4. The Bar ...............................................................................................