Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Laws applied California Constitution State Board of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208 was a California Supreme Court case, in which the Amador Valley Joint Union High School District challenged the constitutionality of California's Proposition 13 , which placed a cap on property taxes .
The California State Board of Equalization (BOE) is a public agency charged with tax administration and fee collection in the state of California in the United States.The authorities of the Board attempt to ensure that counties fairly assess property taxes, collect excises taxes on alcoholic beverages, administer the insurance tax program, and other tax collection related activities.
The collection of almost all state sales taxes and special fees, prior to the formation of the Administration, was handled by the California State Board of Equalization, a constitutional body composed of constitutional offices; despite almost a century of attempts to reform the Board, owing to various corruption-related concerns, these efforts were not successful for most of its history. [3]
The plaintiffs moved for partial summary adjudication on defendants' fair use defense on October 4, 1999, and cross-filed for summary judgment citing a First Amendment defense on October 19 under seal. Judge Margaret M. Morrow issued a preliminary ruling on November 8, 1999, rejecting the "fair use" argument. [6]
While the decision of the Court did not rest on the Fourteenth Amendment, an argument on this ground had been delivered by the defense: That the provisions of the Constitution and laws of California in respect to the assessment for taxation of the property of railway corporations operating railroads in more than one county, are in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution ...
The court held that ReDigi's use of Capitol's works was "well outside the fair use defense." [6] The four fair use factors come from 17 U.S.C. § 107 [21] and are: The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; The nature of the copyrighted work;
Bi-Metallic Investment Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 239 U.S. 441 (1915), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that due process protections attach only to administrative activities in which a small number of people are concerned, who are exceptionally affected by the act, in each case upon individual grounds. By contrast ...
Thus, the district court denied Universal's motion to dismiss Lenz's claim. The district court believed that Universal's concerns over the burden of considering fair use were overstated, as mere good faith consideration of fair use, not necessarily an in-depth investigation, is a sufficient defense against misrepresentation. [2]