A New Rule of Statutory Construction

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "A New Rule of Statutory Construction"

Transcription

1 A New Rule of Statutory Construction by Harry D. Shapiro and Elizabeth A. Mullen Harry D. Shapiro A. Introduction Elizabeth A. Mullen Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. (BGE), founded in 1816, is a public utility that holds a state-sanctioned monopoly on the distribution of electric power provided to more than 1.8 million customers throughout Maryland. BGE is an investor-owned electric company that has an obligation to provide standardoffer service to residential customers in the state. To address an approximately 72 percent increase in total electricity charges to BGE s residential customers, then-gov. Robert Ehrlich called a special session of the General Assembly in The General Assembly enacted SB 1, which established a rate stabilization plan that provided in part: From July 1, 2006, to May 31, 2007, customers could not be charged a total rate that was more than 115 percent of the rate on June 30, 2006; During that period, BGE s residential customers would receive a deferral credit, known as the rate stabilization credit (RS credit), equal to the difference between the actual cost of the electricity, including the delivery charge, and the 15 percent cap on the rates; BGE would recover the RS credit plus related costs incrementally from its customers over the subsequent 10-year period through a usagebased mechanism known as the rate stabilization charge (RS charge); The RS credit and RS charge would apply to all residential customers in BGE s distribution system regardless of whether they purchased electricity from BGE or a third-party supplier; The RS credit or the subsequent RS charge for the rate stabilization costs on the residential customer s bill had to be included as a nonbypassable credit or charge on the electricity distribution portion of the bill ; BGE had to apply to the Public Service Commission, which regulates the state s public utilities, for a tariff implementing the rate stabilization plan; The commission was required, within 20 days after the filing of the tariffs by BGE, to issue an order implementing the Rate Stabilization Plan in accordance with the statutes. 1 The provision of electric power to a Maryland consumer involves two distinct components supplying the electricity and delivering it. 2 BGE s electricity rates include charges for both the electricity supply, sometimes also referred to as the sale of electricity, and the electricity distribution, the transmission of electricity to the consumer through a power grid or other delivery infrastructure. Before 2000, both the sale and delivery of electricity were components of one rate, set by the commission and charged by BGE as the sole provider of electric power to customers in its service area. In 1999 the Maryland General Assembly enacted legislation to make the state s regulated, monopolistic electricity market a less regulated and more competitive. As a result of the deregulation scheme, multiple competing electricity suppliers were created. Regardless of the supplier selected by a consumer, all electric power would be delivered to the consumer through the utility with the franchise for the service area. Accordingly, BGE remained responsible for the distribution of electricity within its service area even though it was only one of multiple electricity sellers. The various electricity suppliers set their own rates for the supply of electricity, and under the deregulation scheme, charges for the supply of electricity were temporarily capped until 1 Md. Code Ann. Pub. Util. article section State Dep t of As s es s m ents and T ax ation v. B altim ore G as & Elec tric C o., 63 A.3d 15 (Md. 2013). State Tax Notes, December 9,

2 Special Report July 1, The General Assembly also eliminated the franchise tax on revenue from the sale of electricity and directed that the tax apply only to revenue from electricity distribution. 3 B. Procedural History Following the enactment of SB 1, the commission granted BGE s request for new tariffs implementing the RS credits and charges. The tariffs were published by the commission as Rider 12 to the BGE electric retail rates. 4 The House and Senate floor reports and the revised Senate fiscal and policy note for SB 1 stated that the RS credits and RS charges had to be placed on the distribution portion of each consumer bill. If the credits were applied to the electricity production portion of the bill, BGE would have had a competitive advantage over the other electricity suppliers, according to the reports. A Maryland customer would have been able to avoid the RS charges by selecting another electricity supplier after having obtained the benefits of the credits. 5 SB 1 also required that residential customers be charged the full cost of the electricity supplied by BGE. 6 Despite the clear direction provided by the General Assembly that the RS credits and RS charges be applied to the delivery portion of each customer s monthly bill, the Maryland Court of Appeals decided in BGE that because the crisis necessitating SB 1 occurred because of a potential 72 percent increase in the cost of electricity, the anticipated cost increase took precedence over the statutory language. 7 That is a substantial departure from the rules governing interpretation of statutes, and it is troubling to say the least. In construing a statute, the court of appeals has repeatedly enunciated the following rules: When this Court interprets a statute, our purpose is to effectuate the intent of the legislature, and, in order to discern that intent, we look first to the plain meaning of the statute s language.... The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the Legislature. Statutory construction begins with the plain language of the statute, and ordinary, popular understanding of the English language dictates interpretation of its terminology.... The statute must be read so that no word, clause, sentence, or phrase is rendered superfluous or nugatory.... If the plain language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, we look no further because there is no need to resort to the various, and sometimes inconsistent, external rules of construction, for the Legislature is presumed to have meant what it said and said what it meant. 8 Also, the commission issued a qualified rate order 9 specifying that the RS credits and RS charges are non-bypassable charges that will be paid by all residential electricity customers of [BGE] as a component of the monthly charge for electric delivery service (Sec ). 10 Because the commission is the administrative agency that interprets the public utilities article of the Maryland Code, the court of appeals agreed with BGE that the tax court s decision was not entitled to any presumption of correctness. Even so, the court of appeals gave no weight to the qualified rate order or any presumption of correctness to the determination of the commission, which regularly interprets provisions of the public utilities article. C. The Refund Action BGE concluded that SB 1 decreased its distribution revenue during the period that the RS credit was applied to consumer invoices, thereby temporarily decreasing the amount of franchise tax paid. BGE s subsequent collection of RS charges would 3 Tax-General Article section 8-402(a)(2). 4 Although these new tariffs specifically applied to the delivery charge, the court of appeals says the new tariffs do not alter the underlying distribution rate billed to the residential customers. This ignores the tariff s express language that the deferral credit... will be included as a non-bypassable per kwh credit applicable to all residential delivery service customers. 5 House floor report, HB 1, 2006 special session, at 6; Senate revised fiscal and policy note, 2006 special session, at 5; Senate floor report, 2006 special session, at 6. 6 Md. Code Ann. Pub. Util. article section 7-524(a)(1) A.3d 15.Although the opinion agrees that the legislation (PU section 7-524(a)(1)) required that BGE bill its residential customers the full cost of the electricity that was being supplied, and that the RS credits and RS charges must apply to the charges for distribution of the electricity, nevertheless this did not demonstrate legislative intent that the RS credits and RS charges applied to the monthly distribution charge to the customer. 8 Comptroller v. Science Applications I nternational Corp., 950 A.2d 766, 773 (2008); see also Supervisor of Assessments v. Stellar GT, 955 A.2d 269, 275, (2008); Comptroller v. Citicorp., 884 A.2d 112, (2005); Stouffer v. Pearson, 887 A.2d 623, (2005); Reed v. Supervisor, 731 A.2d 868, (1999); Anne Arundel County v. M uir, 817 A.2d 938, (2003); Rouse-Fairwood Development Limited Partnership v. Supervisor, 773 A.2d 535, (2001). 9 In accordance with SB 1, BGE applied to the commission for a tariff to implement the plan. The qualified rate order was necessary to further implement SB 1. Qualified Rate Order No was dated Dec. 28, 2006, and was issued in Case No The resulting qualified rate order approved the deferral of electricity supply costs through RS credits and the subsequent recovery of the costs through RS charges. 10 Qualified rate order at 8. Although the order addressed the charges, there is no difference between the credits and charges regarding their effect on a consumer s monthly charge for electric delivery services. 622 State TaxNotes,December 9,2013

3 11 This amount is equal to 2 percent of the $322 million worth of credits included in the distribution portion of residential electricity consumers bills. 12 Slip Op. at page 8. Special Report increase its distribution revenue in future years, thereby increasing its later franchise tax liability. When the case was argued before the court of appeals, BGE had been paying the franchise tax on the RS charges for more than five years. In June 2006 BGE presented its franchise tax position to the State Department of Assessments and Taxation (SDAT), which responded that the placement of the deferral credits on the distribution portion of the bill did not reduce the distribution revenue subject to the tax. BGE filed its 2006 Form 11, Public Service Company Franchise Tax Return, in accordance with SDAT s response. However, soon after that, BGE filed an amended Form 11 reducing its distribution revenue by the total amount of RS credits provided on the distribution portion of consumer invoices. Based on the amended Form 11, the franchise tax owed for the tax period was reduced by $6.4 million. 11 In July 2007 SDAT denied the refund. BGE appealed SDAT s final determination to the Maryland Tax Court, which affirmed the decision. BGE then appealed to the circuit court for Anne Arundel County, which reversed the tax court s decision and granted the refund and interest. In its memorandum opinion and order, the circuit court held that the tax court s interpretation of the relevant statutes of the public utilities article was incorrect as a matter of law and entitled to no deference or presumption of correctness. 12 The circuit court was persuaded by the plain language of section of the public utilities article, which required both the credit charges and credit deferrals are to be reflected on the electric distribution portion of each residential customer s bill. The court stressed that because the credit deferral was placed on the distribution portion of their monthly bill, customers were prevented from switching to a new electrical producer and thus not having to pay the future credit charges. Although the opinion notes that the credit deferrals were designed to reduce the cost of supply, because PU section requires the credit deferrals be reflected in the distribution portion of the bill, the credits should reduce the distribution charges. The circuit court agreed that although the plan was not designed to provide franchise tax relief, the language of section of the public utilities article had that effect. The circuit court pointed to the commission s qualified rate order, which stated that the future revenues under the qualified rate stabilization charges [are] included in BGE s gross income under its usual method of accounting. The circuit court concluded that the tax court s interpretation would leave BGE subject to double tax liability one round of taxes for the credit deferral and another round of taxes upon receipt of the credit charges. Although the legislature may not have intended to affect the franchise tax, the reading of section 7-548(c)(2)(i) of the public utilities article, in conjunction with sections 7-524(a)(1), 7-524(a)(2), and 7-548(a)(3), indicates that a reduction of BGE s franchise tax liability is not an unreasonable consequence. SDAT appealed, and in January 2012 the court of special appeals affirmed. It also recognized that the issue before the tax court involved a pure question of law that could be reviewed de novo. Because the public utilities article is not a tax statute that the tax court regularly interprets or administers, the court of special appeals also declined to give deference to the tax court s interpretation. The court of special appeals affirmed that the relevant sections of the public utilities article supported BGE s position that the credits reduced BGE s franchise tax liability because they are applied to the charges for electricity distribution. The court acknowledged that although the General Assembly did not intend to preclude the credits and charges from franchise tax liability, the temporary reduction of BGE s franchise tax liability was not an unreasonable consequence of the public utilities article. The court of special appeals concluded that: The plain reading of public utilities article section 7-524(a)(1) requires BGE to charge the full price for the cost of generating electricity, and if the credit were applied to the charge for the electricity, the customer would not be charged the full cost for the electricity. The legislative history supported the plain reading of public utilities article section 7-524(a)(1), meaning that the legislature required BGE to charge the full price for the charge for electricity. Although the legislature may not have intended to affect the franchise tax, the reading of section 7-548(c)(2)(i) of the public utilities article, in conjunction with sections 7-524(a)(1), 7-524(a)(2), and 7-548(a)(3), indicates that a reduction of BGE s franchise tax liability is not an unreasonable consequence. Futher, when the intent of the legislature is not immediately apparent, the court will consider the consequences that result from one meaning rather than another and will adopt that State TaxNotes,December 9,

4 Special Report consideration which avoids an illogical or unreasonable result, or one which is inconsistent with common sense. 13 The court of appeals rejected BGE s argument that the plain language of the public utilities article treated the RS credits and RS charges as part of its distribution revenue, thereby deferring part of its franchise tax liability. Despite the lower court decisions based on the plain language of the statute, the court of appeals was persuaded by the absence of any reference to a franchise tax reduction in the legislation. However, there was no discussion in the revised Senate fiscal note or the Senate or House floor reports of two other provisions, one of which had a much greater impact on the state s tax revenue than the temporary reduction in the franchise tax had BGE s position been sustained. First, section (e) of the public utilities article increased the funds to be collected for the electric universal services program each year from $34 million to $37 million. As a result, BGE received an additional $3 million in gross receipts that would be subject to the franchise tax and will increase state revenue. Second, SB 1 section 6 provides for a significant reduction in state income tax revenue. It requires that BGE give all residential electricity customers credits totaling approximately $39 million each year for 10 years, or $390 million in total. The section 6 credit will result in a $39 million reduction in BGE s income each year for 10 years. Given that Maryland s corporate income tax rate is much higher than the franchise tax rate (7 percent compared with 2 percent 14 ), the reduction in state revenue caused by SB 1 section 6 is far greater than the reduction caused by the RS credits. Further, the section 6 credit results in a permanent decrease in state income tax revenue, while the rate stabilization credits only defer BGE s payment of some franchise taxes. The response of the court of appeals to the lack of any discussion of the 10-year, $39 million credit is found in footnote 14: While there may be some merit to this contention, it is also apparent that the various income tax consequences of this bill could be quite complex, while the effect on the franchise tax, if intended as urged by BGE, would be readily ascertainable. The $39 million annual credit could have been explained in very few words, but the legislature simply did not discuss the tax consequences of the legislation that was designed to avoid a substantial 13 Slip Op. at pages That figure reflects the 2006 corporation income tax rate. As of 2008, the rate increased to 8.25 percent. Tax- General Article section (b). increase in electricity cost (this would not be the first major piece of legislation with unintended consequences). That line of reasoning is troubling because it now requires the General Assembly to enumerate every intended and unintended consequence of its legislative actions in order for those consequences to be recognized and afforded legal effect. The SDAT regulations governing the reporting of gross receipts also make it clear that the amended returns filed by BGE were correct because the distribution revenue could not include the amount that was offset by the RS credits. COMAR B(5)(a) provides that the term gross receipts means the operating revenue prescribed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Each year, BGE must file a Form No. 1 with the FERC. On the form, BGE reports its operating revenue in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and FERC regulations. A former director of the FERC Division of Audits testified that BGE correctly excluded the [RS credits] because they were not billed to the distribution customers. BGE reported on its amended return the same amount that was designated as the operating revenue on the FERC Form No The FERC expert also cited SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin 101 in support of his position regarding the exclusion of the RS credits from operating revenue. Itwasn tthat BGEchosetorelate the credits and charges to distribution revenues rather than supply revenues the FERC Uniform System of Accounts requiresittodoso. Although the court of appeals acknowledged that BGE did use the figure from the FERC report in calculating its franchise tax, it said the same regulations make clear that adjustments may be necessary for consistency with Maryland law and that the amounts to be excluded from total operating revenues must be in accord with the franchise tax law. That statement is misleading. What the regulation actually says is that the operating revenue as prescribed by FERC must be used, unless otherwise 15 The figure on line A-1 of the amended Form No. 11 filed with the SDAT had to be adjusted by excluding the competitive transition charge revenue, which is not part of the operating revenue amount reported on the FERC Form No. 1. This was explained in an attachment to the amended Form No State Tax Notes, December 9, 2013

5 specified by Maryland law or regulation. 16 However, the court of appeals did not cite any Maryland law or regulation that specifically requires that the credits be included in operating revenue. It could not cite such a law because that would be contrary to the Uniform System of Accounts prescribed by FERC. The court of appeals said: By not adjusting the figure [total operating revenues] for gross charges for the sale of electricity to take account of the deferred fuel costs regulatory asset, BGE chose to relate the credits and charges to distribution revenues rather than supply revenues a result not dictated by its FERC Report. Operating revenue has nothing to do with deferred fuel costs, which are a regulatory asset under the FERC rules. It wasn t that BGE chose to relate the credits and charges to distribution revenues rather than supply revenues the FERC Uniform 16 COMAR B5(a). Special Report System of Accounts requires it to do so. Nothing in the record supports the above statement from the court of appeals opinion. D. Conclusion The court of appeals reversed and remanded the circuit court and court of special appeals decisions, thereby disregarding the plain meaning of SB 1, the legislative history, and the determination of the franchise tax base that relies on the FERC accounting rules. To imply that a complex, major statute cannot have any franchise tax consequences unless the legislature specifically says so evokes a resultsoriented approach to statutory construction that ignores the unintended consequences that are too often the result of major legislation. Harry D. Shapiro is a partner and chair of the Tax Practice at Saul Ewing LLP, and Elizabeth A. Mullen, a Saul Ewing special counsel in our Washington office. Shapiro represented BG&E before the Maryland Tax Court, Anne Arundel County Circuit Court, Court of Special Appeals and Court of Appeals, and Mullen assisted in preparing the brief in the Court of Appeals. State TaxNotes,December 9,

Comptroller of the Treasury v. Science Applications International Corporation, No. 101, September Term 2007.

Comptroller of the Treasury v. Science Applications International Corporation, No. 101, September Term 2007. Comptroller of the Treasury v. Science Applications International Corporation, No. 101, September Term 2007. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES - TAX COURT - JURISDICTION - INTEREST ON A REFUND: The Tax Court has

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Allstate Life Insurance Company, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 89 F.R. 1997 : Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, : Argued: December 9, 2009 Respondent : BEFORE: HONORABLE

More information

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2012 COA 160. Kyle W. Larson Enterprises, Inc., Roofing Experts, d/b/a The Roofing Experts,

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2012 COA 160. Kyle W. Larson Enterprises, Inc., Roofing Experts, d/b/a The Roofing Experts, COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2012 COA 160 Court of Appeals No. 11CA2205 City and County of Denver District Court No. 10CV6064 Honorable Ann B. Frick, Judge Kyle W. Larson Enterprises, Inc., Roofing Experts,

More information

BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND. * COMAR * Administrative Docket RM17 Competitive Electric Supply * * * * * * * * *

BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND. * COMAR * Administrative Docket RM17 Competitive Electric Supply * * * * * * * * * BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND * COMAR 20.53 * Administrative Docket RM17 Competitive Electric Supply * * * * * * * * * Comments of the Office of People s Counsel Regarding Proposed Regulations,

More information

- Unreported Opinion - Assessments and Taxation assessed real property purchased by Konstantinos Alexakis,

- Unreported Opinion - Assessments and Taxation assessed real property purchased by Konstantinos Alexakis, Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County Case No. C-02-CV-15-003734 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2124 September Term, 2016 KONSTANTINOS ALEXAKIS v. SUPERVISOR OF ASSESSMENTS

More information

February 1, By Electronic Filing and Federal Express

February 1, By Electronic Filing and Federal Express Brian R. Greene GreeneHurlocker, PLC 1807 Libbie Avenue, Suite 102 Richmond, Virginia 23226 (804) 672-4542 (Direct) BGreene@GreeneHurlocker.com February 1, 2016 By Electronic Filing and Federal Express

More information

State & Local Tax Alert

State & Local Tax Alert State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP Wisconsin Court of Appeals Confirms Pollution Remediation Services Taxable The Wisconsin Court of Appeals recently

More information

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 1995 B. F. SAUL REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 1995 B. F. SAUL REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1580 September Term, 1995 B. F. SAUL REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST v. CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, ET AL. Bloom, Murphy, Salmon,

More information

Session of SENATE BILL No By Committee on Utilities 2-15

Session of SENATE BILL No By Committee on Utilities 2-15 Session of 0 SENATE BILL No. By Committee on Utilities - 0 0 0 AN ACT concerning electric utilities; relating to the state corporation commission; authorizing the approval and issuance of K-EBRA bonds;

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS LAFARGE MIDWEST, INC., Petitioner-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION October 12, 2010 9:00 a.m. v No. 289292 Tax Tribunal CITY OF DETROIT, LC No. 00-318224; 00-328284; 00-328928

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE April 27, 2006 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE April 27, 2006 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE April 27, 2006 Session WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY v. LOREN L. CHUMLEY, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson

More information

OPINION. FILED July 9, 2015 S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N SUPREME COURT. JAMES GARDNER and SUSAN GARDNER, Petitioners-Appellants, v No.

OPINION. FILED July 9, 2015 S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N SUPREME COURT. JAMES GARDNER and SUSAN GARDNER, Petitioners-Appellants, v No. Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan OPINION Chief Justice: Robert P. Young, Jr. Justices: Stephen J. Markman Mary Beth Kelly Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack David F. Viviano Richard H. Bernstein

More information

FREDERICK CLASSICAL CHARTER SCHOOL BEFORE THE MARYLAND. Appellant STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION. Opinion No.

FREDERICK CLASSICAL CHARTER SCHOOL BEFORE THE MARYLAND. Appellant STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION. Opinion No. FREDERICK CLASSICAL CHARTER SCHOOL Appellant v. FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION Appellee. BEFORE THE MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Opinion No. 17-41 INTRODUCTION OPINION In October 2013, Frederick

More information

State & Local Tax Alert

State & Local Tax Alert State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP Virginia Supreme Court Affirms Related-Party Addback Safe Harbor Exception Applies on Post-Apportioned Basis In

More information

CASE NO. 1D Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and J. Clifton Cox, Special Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and J. Clifton Cox, Special Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellee. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA VERIZON BUSINESS PURCHASING, LLC, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

More information

Filed: March 31, 2010

Filed: March 31, 2010 REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 0109 September Term, 2009 MACEO L. NEAL v. CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD Meredith, Matricciani, Salmon, James P. (Retired, Specially Assigned)

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS INTER COOPERATIVE COUNCIL, Petitioner-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION June 24, 2003 9:05 a.m. v No. 236652 Tax Tribunal DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, a/k/a LC No. 00-240604 TREASURY

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, Petitioner,

More information

Adventist Health Care Inc. v. Maryland Health Care Commission, No. 73, September Term, Opinion by Bell.

Adventist Health Care Inc. v. Maryland Health Care Commission, No. 73, September Term, Opinion by Bell. Adventist Health Care Inc. v. Maryland Health Care Commission, No. 73, September Term, 2005. Opinion by Bell. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - DEFERENCE When an administrative regulation is ambiguous, in order to

More information

526 December 10, 2014 No. 572 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

526 December 10, 2014 No. 572 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON 526 December 10, 2014 No. 572 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of the Compensation of Rebecca M. Muliro, Claimant. DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND BUSINESS SERVICES, Workers Compensation

More information

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2017COA126 Court of Appeals No. 16CA1648 Office of Administrative Courts Case No. OS 2016-0009 Campaign Integrity Watchdog, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Colorado Republican Committee,

More information

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT. NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY & others 1. vs. COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT. NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY & others 1. vs. COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE. NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 (2009), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address

More information

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. September Term, No MARYLAND OFFICE OF PEOPLE S COUNSEL, et al.,

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. September Term, No MARYLAND OFFICE OF PEOPLE S COUNSEL, et al., IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND September Term, 2006 No. 02689 MARYLAND OFFICE OF PEOPLE S COUNSEL, et al., v. Appellants, BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al., Appellees. On Appeal from

More information

State & Local Tax Alert

State & Local Tax Alert State & Local Tax Alert Breaking state and local tax developments from Grant Thornton LLP U.S. Supreme Court Vacates and Remands Massachusetts Case for Further Consideration Based on Wynne On October 13,

More information

S17G1256. NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC et al. v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE et al.

S17G1256. NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC et al. v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE et al. In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: April 16, 2018 S17G1256. NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC et al. v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE et al. MELTON, Presiding Justice. This case revolves around a decision

More information

Telephone Fax

Telephone Fax Kimberly A. Curry Assistant General Counsel BGE Legal Department 2 Center Plaza, 12 th Floor 110 West Fayette Street Baltimore, MD 21201 Telephone 410.470.1305 Fax 443.213.3206 www.bge.com kimberly.a.curry@bge.com

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Theodore R. Robinson, : Petitioner : : v. : : State Employees' Retirement Board, : No. 1136 C.D. 2014 Respondent : Submitted: October 31, 2014 BEFORE: HONORABLE

More information

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY William F. Lang, District Judge

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY William F. Lang, District Judge Certiorari Denied, May 25, 2011, No. 32,990 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: 2011-NMCA-072 Filing Date: April 1, 2011 Docket No. 29,142 consolidated with No. 29,760 TONY

More information

This article will summarize the decisions of the courts in both

This article will summarize the decisions of the courts in both MARYLAND UPDATE: The Workers' Compensation Offset for Government Retirement Benefits Only Applies When the Periods of Disability are Caused by the Same Injury This article will discuss the implications

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit KELLY L. STEPHENSON, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent. 2012-3074 Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE April 23, 2008 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE April 23, 2008 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE April 23, 2008 Session STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY CO. v. DAVID STONE, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Blount County No. 05-090 Telford E. Forgety,

More information

Circuit Court for Montgomery County Case No V UNREPORTED

Circuit Court for Montgomery County Case No V UNREPORTED Circuit Court for Montgomery County Case No. 423509V UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 00768 September Term, 2017 MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND v. PETER GANG Eyler, Deborah S., Shaw

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: Filing Date: July 27, 2011 Docket No. 32,475 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO, v. Appellant, NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION,

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA City of Philadelphia v. City of Philadelphia Tax Review Board to the use of Keystone Health Plan East, Inc. City of Philadelphia v. City of Philadelphia Tax Review

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 17 3900 Borenstein v. Comm r of Internal Revenue United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit AUGUST TERM 2018 No. 17 3900 ROBERTA BORENSTEIN, Petitioner Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 10, 2016 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 10, 2016 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 10, 2016 Session SECURITY EQUIPMENT SUPPLY, INC. V. RICHARD H. ROBERTS, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Chancery Court

More information

ENTERED 09/14/06 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF OREGON AR 499 ) ) ) ) DISPOSITION: PERMANENT RULES ADOPTED

ENTERED 09/14/06 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF OREGON AR 499 ) ) ) ) DISPOSITION: PERMANENT RULES ADOPTED ENTERED 09/14/06 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF OREGON AR 499 In the Matter of Adoption of Permanent Rules to Implement SB 408 Relating to Utility Taxes. ) ) ) ) ORDER DISPOSITION: PERMANENT RULES

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Reliant Senior Care Management, : Inc. d/b/a Easton Health and : Rehabilitation Center, : Petitioner : No. 1180 C.D. 2014 : Submitted: January 16, 2015 v. : :

More information

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 300A Outlet Pointe Blvd., Columbia, South Carolina 29210 P.O. Box 12265, Columbia, South Carolina 29211-9979 January 19, 2016 The Honorable Judge H.W. Funderburk,

More information

S09A2016. DEKALB COUNTY v. PERDUE et al. Ten years after DeKalb County voters approved the imposition of a onepercent

S09A2016. DEKALB COUNTY v. PERDUE et al. Ten years after DeKalb County voters approved the imposition of a onepercent In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: March 22, 2010 S09A2016. DEKALB COUNTY v. PERDUE et al. HUNSTEIN, Chief Justice. Ten years after DeKalb County voters approved the imposition of a onepercent homestead

More information

Department of Legislative Services

Department of Legislative Services Department of Legislative Services Maryland General Assembly 2008 Session SB 618 FISCAL AND POLICY NOTE Senate Bill 618 Budget and Taxation (Senator Jones, et al.) Property Tax - Homeowners' Property Tax

More information

CASE NO. 1D John R. Stiefel, Jr., of Holbrook, Akel, Cold, Stiefel & Ray, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellant.

CASE NO. 1D John R. Stiefel, Jr., of Holbrook, Akel, Cold, Stiefel & Ray, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellant. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA PAIN REDUCTION CONCEPTS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS SUSAN ADAMS, et al., Claimants-Appellants, FOR PUBLICATION January 3, 2008 9:05 a.m. v No. 272184 Ottawa Circuit Court WEST OTTAWA SCHOOLS and LC No. 06-054447-AE DEPARTMENT

More information

NATIONAL BULK CARRIERS, INC. AND AFFILIATES - DECISION - 11/30/07 TAT (E) (GC) - DECISION

NATIONAL BULK CARRIERS, INC. AND AFFILIATES - DECISION - 11/30/07 TAT (E) (GC) - DECISION NATIONAL BULK CARRIERS, INC. AND AFFILIATES - DECISION - 11/30/07 TAT (E) 04-33 (GC) - DECISION GENERAL CORPORATION TAX UNDER THE CAPITAL METHOD OF COMPUTING ITS GCT LIABILITY, PETITIONER SHOULD INCLUDE

More information

2017 CO 104. No. 16SC51, OXY USA Inc. v. Mesa County Board of Commissioners Taxation Abatement Overvaluation

2017 CO 104. No. 16SC51, OXY USA Inc. v. Mesa County Board of Commissioners Taxation Abatement Overvaluation Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON September 19, 2001 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON September 19, 2001 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON September 19, 2001 Session KRISTINA BROWN, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Individuals and Entities Similarly Situated in the State of Tennessee,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. v. NO. 34,551. APPEAL FROM THE N.M. TAXATION AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT Dee Dee Hoxie, Hearing Officer

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. v. NO. 34,551. APPEAL FROM THE N.M. TAXATION AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT Dee Dee Hoxie, Hearing Officer This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule -0 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note

More information

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 1997 IN RE: LORNE S.

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 1997 IN RE: LORNE S. REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1391 September Term, 1997 IN RE: LORNE S. Hollander, Salmon, Alpert, Paul E. (Ret., specially assigned) Opinion by Alpert, J. Filed: November 25,

More information

IN THE OREGON TAX COURT MAGISTRATE DIVISION Income Tax ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE OREGON TAX COURT MAGISTRATE DIVISION Income Tax ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN THE OREGON TAX COURT MAGISTRATE DIVISION Income Tax MATTHEW S. TOMSETH and DIANA S. TOMSETH, v. Plaintiffs, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, State of Oregon, Defendant. TC-MD 150434C FINAL DECISION 1 Plaintiffs

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals RENDERED: AUGUST 3, 2012; 10:00 A.M. TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2009-CA-001839-MR MEADOWS HEALTH SYSTEMS EAST, INC. AND MEADOWS HEALTH SYSTEMS SOUTH, INC. APPELLANTS

More information

Bankruptcy Court Recognizes the Doctrine of Reverse Preemption

Bankruptcy Court Recognizes the Doctrine of Reverse Preemption Bankruptcy Court Recognizes the Doctrine of Reverse Preemption Written by: Gilbert L. Hamberg Gilbert L. Hamberg, Esq.; Yardley, Pa. Ghamberg@verizon.net In In re Medical Care Management Co., 361 B.R.

More information

302 December 13, 2017 No. 599 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

302 December 13, 2017 No. 599 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON 302 December 13, 2017 No. 599 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON EUGENE WATER AND ELECTRIC BOARD, Petitioner, v. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT BOARD and John T. Wigle, Respondents. Public Employees

More information

Present: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, and Mims, JJ., and Russell and Lacy, S.JJ.

Present: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, and Mims, JJ., and Russell and Lacy, S.JJ. Present: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, and Mims, JJ., and Russell and Lacy, S.JJ. LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC OPINION BY v. Record Nos. 102043, JUSTICE S. BERNARD GOODWYN 102044, 102045, and

More information

Knight Time for Investment Fees in Trusts January 17, 2008

Knight Time for Investment Fees in Trusts January 17, 2008 Knight Time for Investment Fees in Trusts January 17, 2008 Feed address for Podcast subscription: http://feeds.feedburner.com/edzollarstaxupdate Home page for Podcast: http://ezollars.libsyn.com 2008 Edward

More information

American Electric Power Service Corporation, Petitioner v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Respondent

American Electric Power Service Corporation, Petitioner v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Respondent Checkpoint Contents State & Local Tax Library State & Local Tax Reporters States Pennsylvania Cases Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania 2018 American Electric Power Service Corporation, Petitioner v. Commonwealth

More information

ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF REGENTS, Plaintiff/Appellant, ARIZONA STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Defendant/Appellee. No.

ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF REGENTS, Plaintiff/Appellant, ARIZONA STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Defendant/Appellee. No. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF REGENTS, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. ARIZONA STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Defendant/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV 16-0239 Appeal from the

More information

ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION

ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION STATE OF ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS & APPEALS ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION IN THE MATTER OF ACCT. NO.: REFUND CLAIM DISALLOWANCE (Other Tobacco Products) DOCKET NO.:

More information

GOVERNMENT TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INC., Appellee Opinion No OPINION

GOVERNMENT TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INC., Appellee Opinion No OPINION GOVERNMENT TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INC., v. Appellant ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, BEFORE THE MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Appellee Opinion No. 00-47 OPINION In this appeal, Government Technology

More information

STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/sonar/sonar.asp STATE OF MINNESOTA

More information

SHARON DI GIACINTO, Appellant, ARIZONA STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM; RICHARD HILLIS, Appellees. No. 1 CA-CV

SHARON DI GIACINTO, Appellant, ARIZONA STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM; RICHARD HILLIS, Appellees. No. 1 CA-CV IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE SHARON DI GIACINTO, Appellant, v. ARIZONA STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM; RICHARD HILLIS, Appellees. No. 1 CA-CV 15-0722 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ALLY FINANCIAL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION September 20, 2016 9:05 a.m. v No. 327815 Court of Claims STATE TREASURER, STATE OF MICHIGAN, LC No. 13-00049-MT

More information

Session of HOUSE BILL No By Committee on Taxation 1-30

Session of HOUSE BILL No By Committee on Taxation 1-30 Session of 0 HOUSE BILL No. By Committee on Taxation -0 0 0 0 AN ACT concerning property taxation; relating to distribution of taxes paid under protest; amending K.S.A. 0 Supp. -00 and repealing the existing

More information

"BACK-DOOR" RECAPTURE OF DEPRECIATION IN YEAR OF SALE HELD IMPROPER

BACK-DOOR RECAPTURE OF DEPRECIATION IN YEAR OF SALE HELD IMPROPER "BACK-DOOR" RECAPTURE OF DEPRECIATION IN YEAR OF SALE HELD IMPROPER Occidental Loan Co. v. United States 235 F. Supp. 519 (S.D. Cal. 1964) Plaintiff taxpayer owned two subsidiaries, which were liquidated

More information

2016 Tax Return Due Dates, Expiring Credits, and Other Changes Summarized

2016 Tax Return Due Dates, Expiring Credits, and Other Changes Summarized January 2017 Illinois 2016 Tax Return Due Dates, Expiring Credits, and Other Changes Summarized The Illinois Department of Revenue (DOR) has issued a bulletin summarizing Illinois income tax return changes

More information

No. 104,835 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. E. LEON DAGGETT, Appellant, SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

No. 104,835 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. E. LEON DAGGETT, Appellant, SYLLABUS BY THE COURT No. 104,835 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS E. LEON DAGGETT, Appellant, v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES OF THE UNIFIED GOVERNMENT OF WYANDOTTE COUNTY/KANSAS CITY, KANSAS, Appellee. SYLLABUS

More information

79th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Regular Session. Enrolled. House Bill 2391

79th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Regular Session. Enrolled. House Bill 2391 79th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2017 Regular Session Enrolled House Bill 2391 Introduced and printed pursuant to House Rule 12.00. Presession filed (at the request of House Interim Committee on Health

More information

COURT OF APPEALS, STATE OF COLORADO 101 West Colfax Ave., Suite 800 Denver, Colorado 80202

COURT OF APPEALS, STATE OF COLORADO 101 West Colfax Ave., Suite 800 Denver, Colorado 80202 COURT OF APPEALS, STATE OF COLORADO 101 West Colfax Ave., Suite 800 Denver, Colorado 80202 Appeal from the District Court, City and County of Denver Hon. William D. Robbins, District Court Judge, Case

More information

IN THE OREGON TAX COURT MAGISTRATE DIVISION Municipal Tax ) ) I. INTRODUCTION

IN THE OREGON TAX COURT MAGISTRATE DIVISION Municipal Tax ) ) I. INTRODUCTION IN THE OREGON TAX COURT MAGISTRATE DIVISION Municipal Tax JOHN A. BOGDANSKI, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF PORTLAND, State of Oregon, Defendant. TC-MD 130075C DECISION OF DISMISSAL I. INTRODUCTION This matter

More information

IN THE U.S. NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS WASHINGTON NAVY YARD WASHINGTON, D.C. BEFORE C.A. PRICE M.J. SUSZAN R.C. HARRIS UNITED STATES

IN THE U.S. NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS WASHINGTON NAVY YARD WASHINGTON, D.C. BEFORE C.A. PRICE M.J. SUSZAN R.C. HARRIS UNITED STATES IN THE U.S. NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS WASHINGTON NAVY YARD WASHINGTON, D.C. BEFORE C.A. PRICE M.J. SUSZAN R.C. HARRIS UNITED STATES v. Jamie L. SILER Private First Class (E-2), U.S. Marine

More information

FINAL ORDER REVERSING TRIAL COURT. Appellant, Ruth Stanford, appeals the hearing officer s determination that she failed to

FINAL ORDER REVERSING TRIAL COURT. Appellant, Ruth Stanford, appeals the hearing officer s determination that she failed to IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA APPELLATE CASE NO: 2011-CV-94-A-O Lower Case No.: 2011-TR-27543-A-W RUTH STANFORD, v. Appellant, STATE OF FLORIDA,

More information

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-08-00561-CV GTE Southwest Inc., Appellant v. Susan Combs, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, and Greg Abbott, Attorney General

More information

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F GEORGE HICKOK, EMPLOYEE STONE EXPRESS, UNINSURED RESPONDENT NO.

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F GEORGE HICKOK, EMPLOYEE STONE EXPRESS, UNINSURED RESPONDENT NO. BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F408999 GEORGE HICKOK, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT STONE EXPRESS, UNINSURED RESPONDENT NO. 1 P.A.M. TRANSPORT, INC., RESPONDENT NO. 2 LIBERTY MUTUAL

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Petitioner-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION January 30, 2007 9:05 a.m. v No. 262487 Wayne Circuit Court STATE TAX COMMISSION, LC Nos. 04-430612-AA, 04-430613-AA,

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Berks County Tax Collection : Committee, Bucks County Tax : Collection Committee, Chester : County Tax Collection Committee, : Lancaster County Tax Collection

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Washington School District : : v. : : George Retos, Jr., : No. 2376 C.D. 2012 Appellant : Argued: November 14, 2013 BEFORE: HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge

More information

Eyler, James R., Woodward,

Eyler, James R., Woodward, REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2845 September Term, 2006 STELLAR GT v. SUPERVISOR OF ASSESSMENTS Eyler, James R., Woodward, Thieme, Raymond G., Jr., (Ret d, Specially Assigned)

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Daniel Iacurci, Nancy Iacurci, : Eleanor Knight, and Eugenia Knight, : individually and on behalf of similarly : situated homeowners in Allegheny : County, Pennsylvania,

More information

Circuit Court for Prince George s County Case No. CAL UNREPORTED

Circuit Court for Prince George s County Case No. CAL UNREPORTED Circuit Court for Prince George s County Case No. CAL-16-38707 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 177 September Term, 2017 DAWUD J. BEST v. COHN, GOLDBERG AND DEUTSCH, LLC Berger,

More information

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE ) INSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) Appellant,

More information

This opinion is subject to revision before final publication in the Pacific Reporter 2016 UT 1

This opinion is subject to revision before final publication in the Pacific Reporter 2016 UT 1 This opinion is subject to revision before final publication in the Pacific Reporter 2016 UT 1 JANUARY 5, 2016 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH RENT-A-CENTER WEST, INC., Petitioner, v. UTAH STATE

More information

v Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP Legal Counsel

v Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP Legal Counsel Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP M E M O R A N D U M TO: FROM: Jonathan D. Iten DATE: RE: Applicability of Non-Collective Bargaining Provisions of SB 5 to Ohio Public Libraries Senate Bill 5, as passed

More information

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE; NAMED DRIVER EXCLUSION:

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE; NAMED DRIVER EXCLUSION: HEADNOTES: Zelinski, et al. v. Townsend, et al., No. 2087, September Term, 2003 AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE; NAMED DRIVER EXCLUSION: The Named Driver Exclusion is valid with respect to private passenger automobiles,

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Atlantic City Electric Company, : Keystone-Conemaugh Projects, : Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, : Delaware Power and Light Company, : Metropolitan Edison

More information

Case 1:09-cv JTN Document 13 Filed 02/23/2010 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case 1:09-cv JTN Document 13 Filed 02/23/2010 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Case 1:09-cv-00044-JTN Document 13 Filed 02/23/2010 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION In re: QUALITY STORES, INC., et al., Debtors. / UNITED STATES

More information

Princeton Review Litigation Puts Renewal Condition to the Test

Princeton Review Litigation Puts Renewal Condition to the Test Princeton Review Litigation Puts Renewal Condition to the Test By Peter J. Klarfeld, Partner and David W. Koch, Partner, Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP, Washington, D.C. The ruling in Test Services, Inc. v.

More information

MARYLAND'S. for Sales or Transfers of Real Property and Associated Personal Property by Nonresidents WITHHOLDING REQUIREMENTS.

MARYLAND'S. for Sales or Transfers of Real Property and Associated Personal Property by Nonresidents WITHHOLDING REQUIREMENTS. MARYLAND'S WITHHOLDING REQUIREMENTS for Sales or Transfers of Real Property and Associated Personal Property by Nonresidents Revised 7/08 Foreword The scope of Chapter 203, Acts of 2003 was extensive.

More information

Zarnoch, Wright, Thieme, Raymond, G., Jr. (Retired, Specially Assigned), REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No.

Zarnoch, Wright, Thieme, Raymond, G., Jr. (Retired, Specially Assigned), REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 00763 September Term, 2010 SANDRA PERRY v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE, WICOMICO COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT Zarnoch, Wright, Thieme, Raymond,

More information

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION DE STEEL S POND HYDRO, INC. Complaint by Steel s Pond Hydro, Inc. against Eversource Energy

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION DE STEEL S POND HYDRO, INC. Complaint by Steel s Pond Hydro, Inc. against Eversource Energy STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION DE 15-372 STEEL S POND HYDRO, INC. Complaint by Steel s Pond Hydro, Inc. against Eversource Energy Order Denying Motion for Rehearing O R D E R N O. 25,849

More information

Larry G. Taylor v. Alvin E. Friedman et al., No. 2, September Term, [Mortgage Loans - Statutory Construction. Prohibition in

Larry G. Taylor v. Alvin E. Friedman et al., No. 2, September Term, [Mortgage Loans - Statutory Construction. Prohibition in Larry G. Taylor v. Alvin E. Friedman et al., No. 2, September Term, 1996. [Mortgage Loans - Statutory Construction. Prohibition in Commercial Law Article 12-121 and 12-1027 against imposing a lenderus

More information

M E M O R A N D U M. Executive Summary

M E M O R A N D U M. Executive Summary M E M O R A N D U M From: Thomas J. Nichols, Esq. Date: March 12, 2019 Re: 2017 Wisconsin Act 368 Authority Executive Summary State income taxes paid by S corporations and partnerships, limited liability

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE September 8, 2008 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE September 8, 2008 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE September 8, 2008 Session NEWELL WINDOW FURNISHING, INC. v. RUTH E. JOHNSON, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Chancery Court

More information

STATE OF ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS & APPEALS ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION

STATE OF ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS & APPEALS ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION STATE OF ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS & APPEALS ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION IN THE MATTER OF COMPENSATING USE & SPECIAL EXCISE TAX (ACCT. NO.: ) ASSESSMENTS AUDIT NO.:

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals RENDERED: SEPTEMBER 9, 2016; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2015-CA-001054-MR WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP; AND SAM S EAST, INC. APPELLANTS APPEAL FROM FRANKLIN

More information

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY Dennis J. Smith, Judge. In this appeal, we consider whether the interpretation of

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY Dennis J. Smith, Judge. In this appeal, we consider whether the interpretation of Present: All the Justices GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION OPINION BY v. Record No. 032533 JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. September 17, 2004 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION FROM THE CIRCUIT

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS RON COLE, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED September 20, 2005 v No. 255208 Monroe Circuit Court CARL VAN WERT, PEGGY HOWARD, LC No. 00-011105-CZ SUZANNE ALEXANDER, CHARLES

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. ROBERT CARR & a. TOWN OF NEW LONDON. Argued: February 23, 2017 Opinion Issued: May 17, 2017

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. ROBERT CARR & a. TOWN OF NEW LONDON. Argued: February 23, 2017 Opinion Issued: May 17, 2017 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. 1D

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. 1D IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. 1D07-6027 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, AS RECEIVER FOR AMERICAN SUPERIOR INSURANCE COMPANY, INSOLVENT, vs. Petitioner, IMAGINE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ASSOCIATION OF BUSINESSES ADVOCATING TARIFF EQUITY, v Appellant, MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and DETROIT EDISON, UNPUBLISHED June 24, 2004 No. 246912 MPSC LC No.

More information

Case grs Doc 48 Filed 01/06/17 Entered 01/06/17 14:33:25 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 9

Case grs Doc 48 Filed 01/06/17 Entered 01/06/17 14:33:25 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 9 Document Page 1 of 9 IN RE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY FRANKFORT DIVISION BRENDA F. PARKER CASE NO. 16-30313 DEBTOR MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the

More information

MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Minimum Wage for Missouri s Tipped Workers DATE: March 8, 2007

MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Minimum Wage for Missouri s Tipped Workers DATE: March 8, 2007 SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Minimum Wage for Missouri s Tipped Workers DATE: March 8, 2007 Last November, Missouri voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition B, which raised the state s minimum wage to $6.50 per

More information