The Taney Court (1836–1864) heard thirty criminal law cases, approximately one per year.
 Notable cases include "Prigg v. Pennsylvania" (1842), "United States v. Rogers" (1846), "Ableman v. Booth" (1858), "Ex parte Vallandigham" (1861), and "United States v. Jackalow" (1862).
Organizational Intelligence (OI) is the capability of an organization to comprehend and conclude knowledge relevant to its business purpose.
 In other words, it is the intellectual capacity of the entire organizations.
 With relevant organizational intelligence comes great potential value for companies and therefore organizations find study where their strengths and weaknesses lie in responding to change and complexity.
 Organizational Intelligence embraces both knowledge management and organizational learning, as it is the application of knowledge management concepts to a business environment, additionally including learning mechanisms, comprehension models and business value network models, such as the balanced scorecard concept.
 Organizational Intelligence consists of the ability to make sense of complex situations and act effectively, to interpret and act upon relevant events and signals in the environment.
 It also includes the ability to develop, share and use knowledge relevant to its business purpose as well as the ability to reflect and learn from experience
Hoffman v. Jones, (Fla. 1973), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of Florida that was the first adoption of the comparative negligence rule in negligence law through judicial decision as opposed to adoption through statute.
 In the wrongful death case of Hoffman v. Jones, attorney Sammy Cacciatore Jr. was instrumental in causing the Florida Supreme Court to adopt for the first time the comparative negligence rule in negligence law.William Harrison Jones Jr. was killed by a Pav-A-Way Corporation truck driven by Philip Francis Hoffman Jr.
 It was the first case in the nation in which a state supreme court abandoned the almost-150-year-old doctrine of contributory negligence, which precluded an injured victim from recovery if the victim had contributed to the incident to any degree.
 The Florida Supreme Court adopted the concept of “pure” comparative negligence, which allows a victim to be compensated for the percentage of harm caused by the at-fault person.
 The decision of the court in Hoffman v. Jones has been cited in law school textbooks, and now the concept of comparative negligence is the prevailing doctrine.
Gregory V (Γρηγόριος Ε΄, born "Georgios Angelopoulos") was Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople from 1797 to 1798, from 1806 to 1808 and from 1818 to 1821.
 He was responsible for much restoration work to the Patriarchal Cathedral of St George, which had been badly damaged by fire in 1738.
 At the onset of the Greek War of Independence, as Ethnarch of the Orthodox Millet Gregory V was blamed by Ottoman Sultan Mahmud II for his inability to suppress the Greek uprising, even though he had actually condemned the Greek revolutionary activities so as to protect the Greeks of Constantinople from reprisals by the Ottoman Turks.
 The reprisals did come during Holy Week in April 1821, after the Greek rebels scored several successes against the Ottoman forces in the Peloponnese.
Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that State courts cannot issue rulings on federal law that contradict the decisions of federal courts, overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
 The Supreme Court held that under the Constitution, the federal courts have the final power to decide cases arising under the Constitution and federal statutes, and that the States do not have the power to overturn those decisions.
 Thus, Wisconsin did not have the authority to nullify federal judgments or statutes.
Gregory v. Hartley, 113 U.S. 742 (1885) , was a case in error to the Supreme Court of the State of Nebraska where it was decided and reaffirmed that the words "term at which said cause could be first tried and before the trial thereof," Act of March 3, 1875, c. 137, § 3, 18 Stat.
 471, mean the first term at which the cause is in law triable, i.e., in which it would stand for trial if the parties had taken the usual steps as to pleadings and other preparations.
 Babbitt v. Clark, 103 U. S. 808, and "Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Speck", ante, 113 U. S. 87.
The step transaction doctrine is a judicial doctrine in the United States that combines a series of formally separate steps, resulting in tax treatment as a single integrated event.
 The doctrine is often used in combination with other doctrines, such as substance over form.
 The doctrine is applied to prevent tax abuse, such as tax shelters or bailing assets out of a corporation.
 The step transaction doctrine originated from a common law principle in "Gregory v. Helvering", 293 U.S. 465 (1935), which allowed the court to recharacterize a tax-motivated transaction.
Helvering v. Horst, 311 U.S. 112 (1940) , is an opinion of the United States Supreme Court which further developed the “fruit-and-tree” metaphor established in "Lucas v. Earl", 281 U.S. 111 (1930) .
 "Horst" is the leading case that applies the assignment of income doctrine to income from property.
Gregory v Rangitikei [1995] 2 NZLR 208, (1994) 6 TCLR 199 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the sale of property by tender, confirming that an offer inviting tenders to be submitted for the purchase of something did not amount to an offer capable of acceptance to sell that property, but instead merely amounted to an invitation to treat.
 It reinforces the English case of Spencer v Harding (1870) LR 5 CP 561.
 However the Court also ruled that there was a breach of the Fair Trading Act (1986).
Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465 (1935), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court concerned with U.S. income tax law.
 The case is cited as part of the basis for two legal doctrines: the business purpose doctrine and the doctrine of substance over form.
 The business purpose doctrine is essentially that where a transaction has no substantial business purpose other than the tax avoidance and tax evasion|avoidance or reduction]] of Federal tax, the tax law will not regard the transaction.
 The doctrine of substance over form is essentially that, for Federal tax purposes, a taxpayer is bound by the economic substance of a transaction where the economic substance varies from its legal form.

Question: Which case is cited as the business purpose doctrine: Gregory v. Helvering or Ableman v. Booth?
Answer: Gregory v. Helvering