The Bryan v McPherson case is in reference to the use of a Taser gun. Carl Bryan was stopped by Coronado Police Department Officer McPherson for not wearing his seatbelt. Bryan was irate with himself for not putting it back on after being stopped and cited by the California Highway Patrol for speeding just a short time prior to encountering Officer McPherson. Officer McPherson stated that Mr. Bryan was acting irrational, not listening to verbal commands, and exited his vehicle after being told to stay in his vehicle. “Then, without any warning, Officer McPherson shot Bryan with his ModelX26 Taser gun” (Wu, 2010, p. 365). As a result of being shot with a Taser, he fell to the asphalt face first causing severe damage to his teeth and bruising
In many ways, the opinion in this case represents a final step in the creation of
My Objective in studying the case of McCulloch v. Maryland was to learn how the implied powers granted by the U.S. Constitution came to be known.
The hard fact is that sometimes we must make decisions we do not like. We make them because they are right, right in the sense that the law and the Constitution, as we see them, compel the result — Justice Kennedy concurring, Texas v Gregory Lee Johnson
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
II. Parties with Titles: J. M. Near (Appellant, Former Defendant) v. The State of Minnesota (Appellee/Respondent, Former Plaintiff)
The McCulloch v. Maryland case set the tone for the power of the new Constitution. The Constitution was still young, and had yet to be tested. The country lacked financially stability. The War of 1812 tested the economy, and many banks collapsed. The surviving banks, chartered by the states did not have sufficient credit to kick-start the economy again. In 1816, a charter was given by Congress to create a second national bank. At this time, people feared that the national government was becoming too powerful by established the bank. The national bank was established in Maryland. Maryland believed the bank was unconstitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution did it say that the government had the power to create one. Also,
The following horror story is all over the Cole Irrevocable Trust. It was originally written in 1996 by both my parents and amended in 2005 by my father Don Cole, sister Kristen Cole and brother Rodney Cole after my mother's death. The attorney who amended it was Con Lynch. He named himself as trust protector in the trust. Richard Cole, Kelley Plueard, and myself were unaware we were named in the trust until our father's death in 2011.
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
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
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 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
McCulloch v Maryland 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316 (1819) Issue May Congress charter a bank even though it is not an expressly granted power? Holding Yes, Congress may charter a bank as an implied power under the “necessary and proper” clause. Rationale The Constitution was created to correct the weaknesses of the Articles. The word “expressly” particularly caused major problems and therefore was omitted from the Constitution, because if everything in the Constitution had to be expressly stated it would weaken the power of the Federal government.
2. What steps did Jack Moore (the CIO for Heartland Healthcare System) bypass with his oversight of the IT project? Jack Moore's action in advancing Heartland's IT department was very careless and lacked cautions. Jack negligence and Richard Smith (CEO) failure to get involved has genuinely put Heartland Healthcare system in a potential financial dilemma. Let begin with all the step that Jack chose to ignore. Healthcare IT is rapidly advancing, and no one person is capable of mastering all the area of Information technology. Jack failures to engage others is what causes heartland to experience such financial losses and put the organization tech department behind the eight ball. Jack also has decided not to involve current staff member of Heartland
On September 23, you received an email indicating that Jan Stevenson of your library has applied for a personal loan of $5,000 and appointed you as her employment contact. You were asked to write a reference letter and to include whether or not you’ll be able to cosign or guarantee the note in any way. This may be a time sensitive, medium priority because your employee receiving this loan is pending your approval. This task can be completed within 1-2 days during the week; however it requires deep thought. Essentially you are writing a character-reference letter and you would want to make sure Jan Stevenson is a person you are comfortable with putting your reputation on the line for. You have the ability to cosign for the loan or simply verify