English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The injunction trial has been commonly identified as part of the process of liberal legal modernization during the second half of the 19th century. However, tax injunction, directly linked with the call for proportionality and equity in contributions detailed in Section IV of Article 31 of the 1917 Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, was not recognized as immediately applicable jurisprudence. The criterion of Minister Ignacio L. Vallarta (1830-1893) regarding the Court’s inability to be familiar with this resource remained valid until well into the 20th century. The long time frame (1917-1968) covered in this essay seeks to explain, in light of constitutional law and economic performance, why federal justice refused to protect the perpetrators, arguing that the Court was neither a judge nor a reviewing body of the laws issued by Congress

Proporcionalidad y equidad en las contribuciones. El amparo fiscal en México, 1917-1968