Title: Name of case; deciding court; year - Austin Powder Company, Respondent, v. Brian McCullough et al., Appellants, Supreme Court Appellant Division, Third Department, New York (June 29, 1995) Procedural History: How the case got to the reviewing court. Who sued whom? Who won at trial? Who appealed? Subsequent decisions. Respondent obtained judgement against Tri State Construction Supply Inc., a company owned by Appellant, Brian McCullough, for $118,169.18. Respondent filed and was granted a motion for summary judgement in Ulster County Superior Court to hold Brian McCullough and Anfo, Inc. legally liable for Tri state’s judgement debt. Appellants appealed this decision. Facts: Respondent, obtained judgement against Tri State …show more content…
They do not hold corporate meetings. Tri state operated using assets paid for and belonging to McCullough. McCullough had full control of both corporations. Tri state funds were used to pay for McCullough’s golf club dues and landscaping which goes to show that McCullough used these corporation to transact personal business. Tri state also conducted business using assets paid for and belonging to Anfo. The two companies also inter mingled their finances. The vehicle used by Tri State for transportation was owned and insured by Anfo. In addition, Anfo paid for Tri State’s mortgage and telephone bills. Tri state’s checking account was used to pay for Anfo’s payroll. Other thoughts: Any dicta; colorable facts; interesting observations; if you changed the facts—how would it change outcome? Could you flip the case by changing the facts slightly—make it go the other way? How? Also policy considerations: Explanations and elaborations on the reason for the law, etc. If Anfo had multiple shareholders, it would’ve been hard if not impossible to pursue liability against Anfo for Tri state’s judgement
The conviction of guilty offenders when adhering to the guidelines of the NSW criminal trial process is not difficult based on the presumption of innocence. However, due to features of the criminal trial process, established by the adversarial system of trial, cases can often involve copious amounts of time and money, particularly evident in the case of R vs Rogerson and McNamara where factors such as time and money are demonstrated to be in excess. In addition, characteristics of the adversarial system such as plea bargaining has the power to hinder convictions due to the accused having the authority to hire experienced and expensive lawyers to argue their case, hence maintaining their innocence.
The court will likely hold that Andrew Keegan’s (“Mr. Keegan”) actions were a product of a law enforcement officer in influencing his conduct therefore establishing an entrapment defense.
In the controversial court case, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall’s verdict gave Congress the implied powers to carry out any laws they deemed to be “necessary and proper” to the state of the Union. In this 1819 court case, the state of Maryland tried to sue James McCulloch, a cashier at the Second Bank of the United States, for opening a branch in Baltimore. McCulloch refused to pay the tax and therefore the issue was brought before the courts; the decision would therefore change the way Americans viewed the Constitution to this day.
State the title of the article, the name of the publication in which it appeared and the date of publication.
Case Name: Dyer v. National By-Products, Inc., Supreme Court of Iowa, 1986., 380 N.W.2d 732
Many people today argue that McCulloch v. Maryland is one of the most important Supreme Court cases in United States history. Three main points were made by Chief Justice Marshall in this case, and all of these points have become critical and necessary parts of the U.S. Government and how it functions. The first part of the Supreme Court’s ruling stated that Congress has implied powers under a specific part of the Constitution referred to as the Necessary and Proper Clause. The second section of the ruling determined that the laws of the United States are more significant and powerful than any state laws that conflict with them. The last element addressed by Chief Justice Marshall was that sovereignty of the Union lies with the people of the
"Summary of the Decision." Landmark Cases Of The U.S Supreme Court. Street Law, Inc, n.d. Web. 1 Nov. 2013. .
The plaintiff, Cigna Health, owned shares of Audax’s Series B Preferred Stock. In 2014, a majority of Audax’s board and 66.9% of the shareholders approved the merger. The shareholders approved the merger via written consent delivered in the form of support agreements, which included a release of any claims against Optum, an agreement to be bound by the terms of the merger agreement, and an appointment of a stockholder representative. Cigna did not vote in favor of the merger and did not sign the support agreement. The merger agreement required surrender of shared and execution of a Letter of Transmittal in order for a shareholder to receive the merger consideration. The Letter of Transmittal contained a separate release obligation that did not appear in the merger agreement but only appeared in the Letter of Transmittal, and required that stockholders surrendering their shares agree to the obligations contained in the merger agreement, which included an indemnification
Third-Party Defendant, Delta-T Corporation, (“Delta-T”), by its attorneys, ADLER MURPHY & McQUILLEN LLP, moves this Honorable Court for an order allowing Third-Party Plaintiff, Agra Industries, Inc. (“Agra”) to produce the Settlement Agreement between Agra and Plaintiff, United Ethanol, LLC (“United Ethanol”), and for an extension of time for Delta-T to respond to Agra’s Motion to Participate on Its Own Right To Recover Damages against Delta-T.
The IRS usually do not need to validate ordinary business transactions since both the involved parties behave on their own self-interests. However, the IRS is skeptic of any transactions when it comes to evasion of estate taxes and international subsidiaries. When two unrelated companies enter in a transaction, they are involved in arm’s length transaction. However, such is not the case for related companies as they may try to distort the price of the transaction to avoid tax burden. As the boundary of tax evasion and tax avoidance is very thin, especially when it comes to estate tax and international subsidiaries, people often tend to topple over to the evasion side. The case of Estate of H.A. True, Jr. v Commissioner of Internal Revenue in 2005 illustrates the difficulty of obtaining the objective of tax avoidance and how expensive the failed effort of tax avoidance can be (Journal of Financial Service Professionals). Numerous cases of tax avoidance and evasion such as XILINX Inc. and H.A. True illustrate the confusion surrounding the arm’s length standards (ALS) and its application to cost sharing agreements (CSAs). In case of XILINX, the court altered its decisions few times considering the uncertainties of the arm’s length standards. Meanwhile the company believed to have satisfied the standards. Due to the complexity of the arm’s length standards, these cases were compared to other similar transactions. However, it is rare to find two identical cases which meet all the criteria. In both of these cases, the court couldn’t pin point what the actual standards of the arm’s length standards were, giving rise to opportunities of tax evasion. To put the arm’s length standards to a simplest form, the standard requires the two related parties to structure their transactions in such a manner as they would if they were two unrelated parties in similar
Guenther v. Henry Calvert, which determined that Guenther, individually and doing business as ABL Services, is a vexatious litigant pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure section 391, et seq., in that he has, in the past seven years, commended, prosecuted, and maintained in propria persona at least five litigations other than in small claims court that have been finally determined aversely to him or unjustifiably permitted to remain pending at least two years without having been brought to trial or hearing. The order also declared that Guenther has, in the course of litigation while acting in propria persona, repeatedly filed meritless motions, pleadings, and other papers and has engaged in frivolous tactics. The order requires Guenther to furnish for the benefit of all defendants in the litigation adequate security in the amount of $15,000 within 30 days of the date of the order. If he fails to furnish this security, his case will be dismissed. A Pre-Filing Order was also issued which prohibits Guenther, individually or doing business as ABL Services, or doing business under the name of any other business entity under his ownership or control, from filing any new litigation in propria persona in the courts of the State of California without first obtaining leave of the presiding judge of the court where the litigation is proposed to be
The suit was ref the board of directors and key officers, alleged breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross management, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duties for insider selling and misappropriation of information. The plaintiffs had met their rule 23.1 burden to plead with particularity their claims of demand futility. (Case: 1:04-cv-00041 Document #: 142 Filed: 02/28/07 Page 2.) The conclusion of this case is the defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s verified shareholders amended derivative compliant (122) with prejudice is granted. The case was hereby terminated. Case: 1:04-cv-00041 Document #: 142 Filed: 02/28/07 Page
II. Parties with Titles: J. M. Near (Appellant, Former Defendant) v. The State of Minnesota (Appellee/Respondent, Former Plaintiff)
Judicial Activism- judges should interpret and apply the law in the light of ongoing changes in conditions and values
The Supreme Court was known for some of the most notorious decisions made in history, many in which included the cases, Marbury v. Madison, Scott v. Sandford, and United States v. Cruikshank. Despite these cases, the court did turn around and change their perspective and helped minorities achieve their civil rights. In 1915, the case of Guinn and Beal v. United States helped African Americans reassure their right to vote. In this case the Supreme Court considered the grandfather clause to be unconstitutional. The grandfather clause was a mechanism t...