Cases

SANDSTROM, Justice. [¶ 1] Earl and Harold Van Sickle (“Van Sickles”) appeal and Hallmark & Associ *96 ates, Inc., Frank Celeste, William R. Austin, Phoenix Energy, Bobby Lankford, and Earskine Williams (“Interest Holders”), and Missouri Breaks, LLC, cross-appeal from an amended judgment holding M

GOLDBERG, Circuit Judge: Once again we confront taxpayers who have taken a circuitous route to reach an end more easily accessible by a straightforward path. Looking to substance rather than form, we decide that the instant transactions must be taxed for what realistically they are — an exchange of stock and a dividend. The Tax Court heard the present controversy, 61 T.C. 624 (1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS AT KNOXVILLE FILED October 15, 1999 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk ) WASHINGTON COUNTY SALLY SUTTON BRITT, ) 03A01-9812-CH-00416

494 F.3d 1337 (2007) Bobby PROCTOR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FLUOR ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant-Appellant, No. 06-14909. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. August 13, 2007. *1338 *1339 *1340 *1341 James Reba

This appeal arises from a negligence action brought by the plaintiff, Patricia Wolowinski, against the defendants, the City of Chicago (City) and the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA). On the City's motion, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the City and against the plaintiff. The action against the CTA remains pending in the trial court. The plaintiff appeals from the grant of summary judgment in favor of the City, contending that she was an intended and permitted use

FARRELL, Associate Judge: Petitioner, the Citizens Committee for the District of Columbia Video Lottery Terminal Initiative (the Citizens Committee), challenges a decision of the District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics (the Board) rejecting proposed Initiative Measure No. 68, entitled “The District of Columbia Video Lottery Terminal Initiative of 2004,” on the ground that irregularities in the petition circulation

BLACKMUN, Circuit Judge. The National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement here, pursuant to § 10 (e) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. § 160(e), of its 3-member-panel order issued December 18, 1962, with respect to Byrds Manufacturing Corporation. The decision and *330order are reported as 140 N.L.R.B. No. 14. The Board adopted the trial

324 F.2d 329 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,v.BYRDS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Respondent. No. 17329. United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit. Nov. 21, 1963. Allen M. Hutter, Attorney, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marce

ACCEPTED 15-25-00013-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/8/2025 12:26 PM No. 15-25-00013-CV

ACCEPTED 15-25-00012-cv FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/8/2025 3:13 PM No. 15-25-00012-CV

ACCEPTED 12-14-00220-CV TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 9/4/2015 3:01:53 PM