Commonwealth v. Lellock, R.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding regulation invalid when it added restriction for which the law did not provide
• addressing an addition to tax imposed by section 294(d)(2) of the 1939 Internal Revenue Code for substantial underestimation of tax
• “[S]ections 1638 and 1641 connote one particular document by using a definite article (‘the’) and a singular noun (‘disclosure statement’).” (citing Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434 (2004))
• ‘‘We are here concerned with a taxing [a]ct [that] imposes a penalty. The law is settled that penal statutes are to be construed strictly 4 See, e.g., Caldor’s, Inc. v. Bedding Barn, Inc., 177 Conn. 304, 317, 417 A.2d 343 (1979
• Frankfurter, Clark & Harlan, JJ., dissenting

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).