dismissing an adversary proceeding that argued taxes paid to the state were a preference and, also, finding no evidence that the abrogation effort was pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment, especially "when a specific, substantive Article I power clearly enabled the law."
Summary of this case from University of Virginia v. RobertsonNo. 97-1367.
April 20,1998.
Sup. Ct. 111. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 179 111. 2d 282, 688 N. E. 2d 620.
dismissing an adversary proceeding that argued taxes paid to the state were a preference and, also, finding no evidence that the abrogation effort was pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment, especially "when a specific, substantive Article I power clearly enabled the law."
Summary of this case from University of Virginia v. RobertsonFull title:ORMAN ET AL. v. CHARLES SCHWAB CO., INC., ET AL
Court:U.S.
Date published: Apr 20, 1998
Some courts have held that § 106(b) is unconstitutional under Seminole Tribe. See, e.g., Schlossberg v.…
In re StraightSome courts have held that § 106(b) is unconstitutional under Seminole Tribe. See, e.g., Schlossberg v.…