State Constitutional Law in 1932–33, II

1933 ◽  
Vol 27 (5) ◽  
pp. 752-768
Author(s):  
Charles G. Haines
Keyword(s):  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Federal District ◽  
District Court ◽  
Great Care ◽  
Relevant Factor ◽  
Administrative Authority ◽  
State Tax ◽  
Reproduction Cost ◽  
State Constitutional Law ◽  
Special Master

Review of administrative authority and procedure has at times some strange and unfortunate results. Such was the case when the railroads protested the payment of taxes levied by the state tax commission of Washington. When the issue was brought to the courts, a special master was designated to secure evidence and to make preliminary findings of fact and conclusions of law. The master found no actual fraud, but concluded that there was constructive fraud in fixing base values and in allocating such values to the counties. He also found gross over-valuation and a grossly excessive ratio of assessed to actual value.With the master's report before it, the federal district court made the usual deferential statement to administrative officers in this field in asserting that great care must be taken not unduly to interfere with the discretion which is confided to the assessing and taxing agencies; within their jurisdiction, except in case of fraud or a clearly shown adoption of wrong principles, they are the ultimate guardians of certain rights. Then the court proceeded to condemn the methods of procedure followed by the tax commission in assessing railway property, and also to disapprove of some of the conclusions of the master. Among these conclusions, the master believed that reproduction cost could not be used as a criterion for tax purposes; but the court held that such cost may be considered a relevant factor in such cases.

Constitutional Law in 1943–44

1945 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 293-308
Author(s):  
Robert E. Cushman
Keyword(s):  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Federal District ◽  
Price Control ◽  
Price Regulation ◽  
District Court ◽  
Total List ◽  
National Power ◽  
Insurance Business ◽  
Set Up ◽  
War Power

There were no changes in the personnel of the Court during the 1943 term. Disagreement amongst the justices mounted sharply. In seventeen cases, four justices dissented; three dissented in twenty others. Two cases overruled previous decisions of the Court, bringing to twenty-four the total list of reversals since 1937. One of the two recent reversals, that in the very important case holding the insurance business to be interstate commerce, was effected by a minority of the justices, who divided four-to-three.A. Questions of National Power1. The war PowerConstitutionality of Wartime Price Control and Rationing. In a group of cases, the Court came to grips with the constitutionality and construction of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942. The most important of these was Yakus v. United States, involving a conviction in a federal district court in Massachusetts for a violation of the maximum prices fixed by the O.P.A. on the sale of wholesale cuts of beef. Yakus refused to obey the price regulation, declined to follow the procedure made available in the statute for protesting against it, and attempted in his criminal trial to challenge the validity of the price regulations and of the statute on which they rested. This he was not permitted to do. Speaking through Chief Justice Stone, the Gourt held the Emergency Price Control Act to be valid, not only in its substantive regulations, but also in the procedures set up for its enforcement. The Court's opinion dealt with four points.

Medicaid & Medicare: D.C. Appellate Court Denies Claim for Medicare Reimbursement of GME Cost

1999 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-205
Author(s):  
choeffel Amy
Keyword(s):  
Medical Center ◽  
Federal District ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
University Of Pennsylvania ◽  
District Court ◽  
Appellate Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
Administrative Proceedings ◽  
Summary Judgment

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld, in Presbyterian Medical Center of the University of Pennsylvania Health System v. Shalala, 170 F.3d 1146 (D.C. Cir. 1999), a federal district court ruling granting summary judgment to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) in a case in which Presbyterian Medical Center (PMC) challenged Medicare's requirement of contemporaneous documentation of $828,000 in graduate medical education (GME) expenses prior to increasing reimbursement amounts. DHHS Secretary Donna Shalala denied PMC's request for reimbursement for increased GME costs. The appellants then brought suit in federal court challenging the legality of an interpretative rule that requires requested increases in reimbursement to be supported by contemporaneous documentation. PMC also alleged that an error was made in the administrative proceedings to prejudice its claims because Aetna, the hospital's fiscal intermediary, failed to provide the hospital with a written report explaining why it was denied the GME reimbursement.

State Constitutional Law in 1929–1930

1930 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 666-686 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oliver P. Field
Keyword(s):  
Constitutional Law ◽  
State Courts ◽  
State Constitutions ◽  
Course Of Action ◽  
The Subject ◽  
State Constitutional Law

State courts determine, in the absence of constitutional provision to the contrary, whether amendments to state constitutions have been proposed and adopted in the manner provided for these constitutions. Not every minor deviation from the course of action marked out in the constitution for its amendment is deemed sufficient to justify the court in declaring that the amendment has been “unconstitutionally adopted,” but whether these deviations are serious enough to warrant such a declaration is a question to be determined by the courts themselves. Statutes supplementing constitutional provisions on the subject of amendment are valid if not in conflict with the constitutional provisions themselves, and substantial compliance with these rules is also required by the courts. Sometimes the provisions regulating the subject of publication of proposed amendments are constitutional; at other times they are statutory. In either case, publication in the manner provided for, and for the period of time provided for, is necessary to the validity of the amendment. Publication for two weeks, when the period should have been four weeks, was deemed sufficient by the Nebraska court to invalidate the amendment involved.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document