With this being the 11th survey and state ranking to be released, last year's findings revealed the «overall average scores of the states are increasing and senior lawyers and executives in large corporations tend to have positive perceptions about the fairness and reasonableness of state
liability systems overall.»
Not exact matches
Although the tax
system is used to determine eligibility and the amount of the benefit, it does not affect a taxpayer's
overall tax
liability.
High - income taxpayers may garner a large share of an income tax cut, but the tax
system could still end up more progressive if their share of the tax cut is much smaller than their share of
overall tax
liabilities.
The 2017 survey also reveals that the
overall average scores of the states are increasing, and senior attorneys and executives see the litigation environment improving generally; more than six in ten respondents (63 %) view the fairness and reasonableness of state court
liability systems in the United States as excellent or pretty good, up from 50 % in 2015 and 49 % in 2012.
In Gariepy, Justice Nordheimer declined to certify the action as a class proceeding on the basis that the determination of whether the defendant's products were defective did not significantly advance the
overall determination of
liability, as there were a myriad of reasons why a class member's plumbing
system might fail.
According to an Editorial in the October 8, 2017 edition of The Orange County Register, California ranked 47th out of the 50 states in terms of
overall fairness and reasonableness of its
liability system based on a survey by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Research of 1,321 in - house general counsel, senior litigators, or attorneys and other senior executives having recent litigation experience in the states they evaluated.