• The jury reached a verdict on September 24, 2009, and a judgment was ordered in favor of W. The judgment required M to pay W $18.5 million. • In November 2009, M filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals. • In December 2010, the Court of Appeals issued a ruling in favor of M’s appeal and reversed the lower court’s ruling on the matter. This meant that the Court of Appeals overturned the jury verdict and the $18.5 million judgment against M. • On January 6, 2011, W filed a petition for a re-hearing before the same panel of appellate judges against the reversal of ruling by Court of Appeals. • On February 10, 2011, the appellate judges declined the petition for a re-hearing.
Memo: Cynthia Thomas 2008 Tax Return Audit Deduction for Business Expenses on Personal Tax Return Ms. Cynthia Thomas is the President and sole shareholder of Violet Corporation. Violet Corporation is a calendar year taxpayer, who unfortunately over the past year has fallen into a precarious financial position. Ms. Thomas incurred $9,500 of business expenditures for travel, entertainment, and promotion on behalf of Violet Corporation. Ms. Thomas decided not to get reimbursed for these expenses and instead decided to deduct them on her own personal tax return (1040). Ms. Thomas was unfortunately audited in 2008 by the Internal Revenue Service, and they found that these deductions were disallowed.
A.P. Smith Mfg. Co. v. Barlow Facts: The plaintiff corporation was attempting to donate $1,500 to Princeton University. However, the stockholders were against this decision, and P instituted a declaratory judgment action. The stockholder’s argued: (1) the plaintiff’s certificate of incorporation does not expressly authorize the contribution, and under common-law principles the company does not possess any implied or incidental power to make it, and (2) the New Jersey statutes which expressly authorize the contribution may not constitutionally be applied to the plaintiff, a corporation created long before their enactment.
Issue: Whether Block is liable or not for any acts or omissions after 31 December 1976, which is the day the law firm was dissolved. Decision: The court found that dissolution of the law firm was ineffective to terminate the obligations between their clients. Reasoning: On 31 December 1976, the partnership of the law firm was dissolve by mutual agreement. This basically means the beginning of the winding up
Goldring was dismissed from the case, and the trial proceeded against just Medlantic. The jury found Medlantic liable for breach of confidential relationship and awarded damages in the amount of $250,000 (Doe, 2003). The jury found against Doe on the invasion of privacy claim because Goldring’s disclosure was not within the scope of Goldring’s employment with Washington Health Center (Doe, 2003). The jury also found that the lawsuit was filed within the one-year limitation periods. This verdict was then reversed by the trial court in favor of Medlantic.
Who uses payday loans III. Federal laws and regulations A. A 2006 law prohibited payday lending to active duty military and families B. Payday Lending Limitation Act of 2010 1. Intended to put national limitations on payday lenders 2. Bill failed to pass leaving limitations to state regulators IV.
In Carnation Company v. NLRB,429 F.2d 1130 (9th Cir.1970), this court found that Carnation's requirement that its dairy distributors maintain advertisements on their work vehicles did not evidence an employer-employee relationship. Id. at 1132; see also Associated Diamond Cabs, 702 F.2d at 921 (concluding that income from advertisements that went to taxicab company was "irrelevant to the issue of an employer's control over the lessees"). Similarly, in City Cab of Orlando I, a taxicab company's requirement that a driver return to its facility in order for a mechanic to place decals listing the new telephone number of the company was found to not be the type of control normally exercised by an employer over an employee. 285 N.L.R.B.
Explain. [Bannister v. Bemis Co. , 556 F.3d 882 (8th Cir.2009)] Case brief: Bemis Co, breached the covenant not to compete, the breach was material. Bannister could not accept employment with a Bemis competitor, but Bemis was to pay Bannister his salary. There was no term for a partial release. Bemis “released” Bannister to seek employment with one exception—Mondi Packaging.
Restatement of Financial Results ACC/537 This paper reviews the restatement of financial results of Kodiak Energy, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2007 and the year ended December 1, 2007. The company was forced to issue a restatement because of financial accounting errors in measurement and in the application of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in the September 2007 acquisition of the Thunder River assets. On the original financial statement, Kodiak Energy reported issuing seven million common stocks of its company in order to acquire assets owned by Thunder River Energy. In their 10-k and 10-Q statements, Kodiak Energy reported a value of $2 per share at the time of the transaction. However, an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) revealed
The District Court reversed the Commission’s decision and ordered the benefits to be reinstated. From the District Courts judgment the Center appealed. Issues: Whether Ms. Mitchell’s actions constituted misconduct so as to disqualify her from certain unemployment compensation benefits. Rule: The term ‘misconduct’ is not clear in the Unemployment Compensation Law. The Wisconsin Supreme Court found in a previous case, no statutory