Nix v. Hedden status of the cucumber, squash, pea, and bean. "Nix" has been cited in three Supreme Court decisions as a precedent for court interpretation of common meanings, especially dictionary definitions. ("Sonn v. Maggone," ; "Saltonstall v. Wiebusch & Hilger," ; and "Cadwalader v. Zeh," ). Additionally, in "JSG Trading Corp. v. Tray-Wrap, Inc.," 917 F.2d 75 (2d Cir. 1990), a case unrelated to "Nix" aside from the shared focus on tomatoes, a judge wrote the following paragraph citing the case: In 2005, supporters in the New Jersey legislature cited "Nix" as a basis for a bill designating the tomato as the
Mullens v Federal Commissioner of Taxation them just across the dividend record date. General anti-avoidance provisions didn't apply, because both parties' taxable incomes increased. A holding period rule of the kind alluded to by Barwick and Stephen above had to be instituted. Mullens v Federal Commissioner of Taxation Mullens v Federal Commissioner of Taxation, was a 1976 High Court of Australia tax case concerning arrangements where stockbrokers Mullens & Co accessed tax deductions for monies subscribed to a petroleum exploration company. The Australian Taxation Office held the scheme was tax avoidance, but the court found for the taxpayer. In the taxonomy of tax schemes, this was