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 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 of the kind where a wholly intentional tax benefit is swapped or traded between taxpayers, from someone who can't make full use of it to someone who can. The principal significance of the case today is