Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Gardner

Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. Gardner, 489 U.S. 1016 (1989)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1989-02-21
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • holding that because state imposed substantial restrictions on state trooper's lunch arrangements, lunch expenses were deductible as "ordinary and necessary" business expenses under general provisions of Sec. 162(a)
  • holding that because state imposed substantial restrictions on state trooper’s lunch arrangements, lunch expenses were deductible as “ordinary and necessary” business expenses under general provisions of § 162(a)
  • standing merely requires the party to make allegations of a colorable claim of injury to an interest which is arguably protected or regulated by the statute or constitutional guarantee
  • standing merely requires the party to make allegations of a colorable claim of iiyury to an interest which is arguably protected or regulated by the statute or constitutional guarantee
  • “the state bears the burden of disproving [duress and entrapment] once they are raised by the presentation of some evidence supporting them”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Gardner. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
73 opinions

Sup. Ct. App. W. Va. Certiorari denied.