Day v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Companies

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that Treasury’s revisions to the regulation were only “editorial in nature” and “aimed at clarifying the rule, not altering its meaning.”
• “a careful reading of the agency's published notices, from its original grant of the petition for rulemaking to its final rule, may still disclose a ‘reasoned path’ that the agency followed to reach its ultimate rule”
• disagreeing with Hewitt and holding the regulation to be valid
• “[T]he donation of an easement will not qualify for a charitable deduction unless the taxpayer can guarantee that both the grant of the interest and the conservation goals which it serves will endure for quite a long time— forever, to be exact.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).