Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Griswold, the Court had held that parts of the Legal Tender Act violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In his majority opinion, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase did not hold that Congress lacked the power to issue paper money, but rather ruled that the notes could not be used as legal tender for ...
The "polestar" of regulatory takings jurisprudence is Penn Central Transp. Co. v.New York City (1973). [3] In Penn Central, the Court denied a takings claim brought by the owner of Grand Central Terminal following refusal of the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission to approve plans for construction of 50-story office building over Grand Central Terminal.
The Court had reversed the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's holding in their favor on the grounds that the power to tax, even prohibitively, was within the state's constitutional prerogative. [ 63 ] The Supreme Court noted that the lower court had accepted as legitimate the city's concerns about the negative effects the abundant supply of private ...
Check recipient information: The person or company the bank should make the check payable to Money for the fee : Payment for the cashier’s check fee as set by your bank Memo information ...
2. Best Price: Super Value Checks. If you’re looking for cheap checks, Super Value Checks is your best bet. According to the website, you can save 50% to 75% compared to bank check prices. And ...
Quantity: A single box order of checks usually comes with 100 to 150 checks, though some retailers, like Sam’s Club, provide a lot more checks in a box. There may be a discounted price for ...
United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936), is a U.S. Supreme Court case that held that the U.S. Congress has not only the power to lay taxes to the level necessary to carry out its other powers enumerated in Article I of the U.S. Constitution, but also a broad authority to tax and spend for the "general welfare" of the United States. [1]
Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case which held that Congress could regulate the sale of private property to prevent racial discrimination: "[42 U.S.C. § 1982] bars all racial discrimination, private as well as public, in the sale or rental of property, and that the statute, thus construed, is a valid exercise of the power of ...