Gilmore Case

Evidence of his wife’s adultery was presented at trial and the husband was granted a divorce on that ground by the trial court. Derby v. Derby, 378 S.E. 2d 74 (Va. Ct. App. 1989) The trial court also held that the separation agreement was invalid due to terms of unconscionability and constructive fraud or duress. Derby v. Derby, 378 S.E. 2d

Two New York residents, both women, married lawfully in Canada. When one of the spouses, Thea Spyer, died, she left her estate to the other spouse, Edith Windsor. Windsor was not able to claim the estate tax exemption for surviving spouses because of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a federal law that excluded same-sex partners from the definition of “spouse” in its statutory use. Both the district court and the court of appeals found that portion of the statute unconstitutional.

This case included the plaintiff Shirley Jones and the defendant Petitioner Calder. Shirley Jones felt as if she was been libeled in an article that was written by the petitioners in Florida. The article that was written, accused Jones of a drinking problem which affected her acting career. The article was actually written by Petitioner South. Calder went over the article and edited in a way it could be published. Once the case was taken to court, both Petitioners Calder and South decided to challenge California’s personal jurisdiction due to neither one having any physical contacts with California, particularly as it pertained to this article.

However, the Tax Court denied Steinberg 's motion for summary judgment because while as a matter of law the daughters ' assumption of the potential Sec. 2035(b) estate tax liability could be consideration in money or money 's worth, there was still a material question of fact whether the assumption of the liability was consideration that

In what is a terrible blow for the NSW VB Blues and the Sydney Roosters, Boyd Cordner is set to miss a month of football thanks to a foot injury sustained during the match on Wednesday.

I believe the first missed opportunity (when police were involved) to cut this case short came in March 1998 when Dr. Linda Reynolds raised concerns about the number of Shipman’s patients dying, and the circumstances surrounding the deaths. The Detective Investigator (DI), David Smith, appears to have failed doing a thorough background check on Shipman, and his supervisor’s lack of experience and ability to supervise such a case was the starting point (Smith, 2003). Had DI Smith completed a complete work up on Shipman, he may have had grounds to launch a full investigation due to his past conviction for fraud and drug usage (as a doctor). The other opportunity which I believe could have resulted in charges was the ordering of an autopsy and through review of the death and cremation certificates of Shipman’s past patients. Had an autopsy been conducted on the last two victims (they were available), the

Facts: Velma W. Alderman was married to Marion F. Alderman who filed a joint federal income tax return being a calendar and actual basis taxpayers in 1963. Marion F. Alderman died in October of 1968. Aldermans operated a sole proprietorship lumber-trucking business until February 13, 1963 when the Aldermans transferred all of the proprietorship’s assets and debts to Alderman Trucking Co., Inc. a newly formed corporation, in exchange for 99 of the 100 outstanding shares of the corporation’s no-par common stock and the assumption by the corporation of all of the liabilities pertaining to the sole proprietorship. The remaining share was issued to their bookkeeper. The Aldermans transferred accounts payable of $24,420.14, notes payable of 47,591.65 secured by the transferred trucks and trailers to Alderman Trucing Co., Inc, and finally depreciable trucks and trailers with a basis of $62,782.20. On Februaruy 13,1963 the day of the transfer, the liabilities of the business assumed by the Alderman Corp. exceeded the adjusted basis of the assets transferred to it by $9,229.59. The requirements of section 368(c) were satisfied on the transfer of the assets of the sole proprietorship to the Alderman Corp. because the Aldermans owned 99 percent of all the corporation 's stock after the transfer. The Aldermans executed a personal promissory note payable to the corporation with a face value of $10,229.59, creating a capital stock account of $1,000.

Generally, for an expenditure to be an ordinary and necessary business expense, the taxpayer must show a bondafide business purpose for the expenditure and there must be a proximate relationship between the expenditure and the business of the taxpayer. Ed and Marie’s construction company has no relationship to Jim’s motocross races. They also cannot provide a suitable explanation of how the motor home is a business expense, because in fact it is a personal

: On June 20, 1978, Carol Heiselman, (now Maphet) and Leonard Heiselman divorced. Together the couple had 3 children, one of which was Douglas Heiselman, who was fourteen years old at the time and suffers from hemophilia. Custody was awarded to Maphet (the mother) and Mr. Heiselman was required pay $50 per week for support of the child “until further order of this court.” Then in 1982 when Douglas turned 18, Heiselman filed a motion to stop the child support because Douglas had reached the age of majority. The trial court denied his motion and ordered him to continue child support payments anyway. Mr. Heiselman does not believe the court had the authority to do so, he wanted to stop the payments despite Douglas’s

Parties and their roles: Casey MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PGA TOUR, INC., a Maryland corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

However in Re Golay the court looked at the tester’s intention’. To deduce what ‘reasonable income’ meant

Because Gagliardi’s death is a nonwrongful dissociation (pg. 991). Gagliardi’s estate has the right to receive the amount in Gagliardi’s capital account at the time of his death and receive it within 90 days of Gagliardi’s passing (pg. 1005). While Bennett continuing the business while winding it up would not violate any fiduciary duties if it is more advantageous to keep the business running shortly prior to dissolution and winding up of the partnership (pg.996). However, commingling all the revenue generated from partnership case files with his own personal funds and spending approximately $2,000 of the partnership's revenue for his own personal and partnership is a violation of his duties to his deceased partner primarily his duty of loyalty.

In the 1970’s, Sears was a major economic player in the tool industry. They were originally called Sears and Roebuck until the early 1970’s, but since then the Roebuck part of their name has been dropped. During the early 1970’s was when Sears began to develop more business in a retail setting, as they began expanding heavily into suburban shopping malls and doing less business through their mail-order catalog, which, historically, was what had made them a well known company. The major brand that Sears holds that could have competed with Cooper/Nicholson is the Craftsman brand, which was registered by Sears in 1927 and was recently names one of America’s most trusted brands.

In 1975, Husband and Wife had a child together. At the time, Wife possessed a high school diploma, some job training, and was employed as a “temp.” Upon the birth of her first child, Husband initially denied paternity. After the circuit court determined paternity, the parties married in 1979 in Baltimore City. Together, the couple had three children. The arrangement between the parties was that Wife would contribute to the relationship as a “stay at home mom” while Husband was primarily responsible for the financial contributions to the family. The couple originally lived together in their home in Harford County. In 1995, however, the couple was separated when Husband moved out of the family home and into an apartment in Baltimore City.

One of the first cases I encountered was the dual cases of Mr. and Mrs. Richard and Susan Deal. The first case is brought against Mrs. Deal for her acts of sexual incontinency. In 1852, Richard Deal tried to remarry when he was still married to his wife, Susan. According to the records, I can only conclude that Susan and Richard stayed married for a long time, but lived separate for the rest of