All categories

2 years ago

NATIONAL AUTO DEALERS EXCHANGE, L.P., PLAINTIFF,

Law

1 answer:

ANTONII [103]2 years ago

8 0

1. The jurisdiction of the case is in <u>New Jersey</u>.

2. It is not a class-action lawsuit. A class-action lawsuit involves a large group and not a partnership. For instance, if all the Auto Dealers in New Jersey are involved in the case, it becomes a class-action lawsuit.

3. The plaintiff, NATIONAL AUTO DEALERS EXCHANGE, L.P, <u>prevails</u> in the case.

4. There was no monetary award in the case. It was a summary judgment, which does not require a full trial.

5. This case was a final adjudication of a substantive law claim. The court affirmed that the tax division of New Jersey lacked the jurisdiction to impose or assess NADE for corporate tax since it was not a company for corporate tax purposes but a pass-through entity.

<h3>What is jurisdiction? </h3>

Jurisdiction refers to the level of government that exercises the legal authority to decide a lawsuit.

In the United States, jurisdiction is divided into local, state, and federal levels.

<h3>What is a pass-through entity?</h3>

Some of the pass-through entities include sole proprietorship, partnerships, LLCs, and S-corporations.

A pass-through entity is not assessed for corporate tax because the profits are distributed to the individual owners who are assessed for personal taxes.

Learn more about jurisdiction and pass-through entities at brainly.com/question/10377896 and brainly.com/question/24782858

#SPJ1

You might be interested in

Please Help!!!!!!!!!!!

Bogdan [553]

Answer:

It's the first one because he can send troops to action because He/she is the commander in chief, but it must get approved by congress before he/she does.

Explanation:

3 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Cases heard by the Supreme Court are named for the two or more parties who oppose each other. A party can be either an individua

Oxana [17]

Answer:

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia.

Explanation:

The 1831 Supreme Court case of the Cherokee Nation v. Georgia was a court ruling between the Cherokee Nation, the petitioners, against the state of Georgia, the respondent.

In this court case, the Cherokees filed a complaint against the State of Georgia, asking if the state has any jurisdiction to impose laws on the Nation. This was because the state has promised Cherokee lands to Georgian settlers if they settle in the state. The court decided that since the Cherokees are a dependent nation, it cannot make any decision as it has no jurisdiction over the case. Thus, this means that the Cherokee Nation cannot have any legal recourse to stop the state from taking their lands. This case was then followed up by the 1832 Worcester v. Georgia ruling where the court ruled in favor of the Cherokee people.

Thus, the correct answer is Cherokee Nation v. Georgia.

3 0

3 years ago

Name the two ways to propose an amendment to the Constitution. Then name the two ways to ratify an amendment to the Constitution

Korvikt [17]

Under Article V of the Constitution, there are two ways to propose and ratify amendments to the Constitution. To propose amendments, two-thirds of both houses of Congress can vote to propose an amendment, or two-thirds of the state legislatures can ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments.

Hope this helps!

Please give brainliest!

7 0

3 years ago

What is the relationship between the ministry, board and management

german

Answer:

A productive and harmonious relationship between the board and management is critical for good governance and organisational effectiveness. The board expects management to accept that the board's role is to monitor and question, probe issues, seek clarification, offer insight and share its knowledge and experience whilst the ministry represents the decisions and are the face of the government.

Explanation:

8 0

3 years ago

What was the supreme court's main decision in Palko v. Connecticut?

VashaNatasha [74]

In Palko v. Connecticut (1937), the Supreme Court had to decide whether "due process of law" means states must obey the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment

<u>Explanation: </u>

The observation of the Supreme Court is that the convict cannot be punished two times for the same offense. It is simple and very clear that the convict cannot be punished under the fourth and fifth amendments for same offense.

In this particular case, the prosecution has charged Frank Palko for first-degree murder and the court has given a decree as life imprisonment. But the actual nature crime amounts to second-degree murder.

So, the state of Connecticut appealed against this judgment and it has been proved that offense made by Frank Palko amounts to second-degree murder and the death penalty is awarded to convict. The Supreme Court's main decision in Palko vs Connecticut was Palko was the victim of unconstitutional double jeopardy.

5 0

2 years ago

Read 2 more answers