Accordingly, National was not required to offer underinsured motorist coverage to drivers under the self-insured statute, which requires only self-insurers to provide uninsured motorist coverage. Further, under its rental agreement, National was required to provide underinsured motorist coverage only if the vehicle was involved in an accident in a state that had mandatory underinsured motorist coverage that could not be rejected by any means. In Ohio, the coverage is rejectable. In accordance, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of National and against Metropolitan. Estate of Ralston v. Metro.Prop.&Cas.Ins146 Ohio App.3d 630 (2001) 2001-Ohio-3478 In our case, just as in Estate of Ralston, Sage Rent-A Car was self-insured under the provisions of R.C.4509.62, and R.C.4509.72 (a)(b), excluding them from liability.
HEARSAY/Non-Hearsay Hearsay – Supra Will Frank Torino’s testimony regarding Nordstrom’s regional manager’s phone call to him (Frank), be admitted as hearsay? If it is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Here, Frank is testifying as an agent of Novelty, that Nordstrom’s called Frank to indicate that Novelty breached their vendor agreement. The NonHearsay would be under “Verbal Acts” since the truth of that matter is not at issue. Verbal acts - verbal acts not offered for their truth.
The court ordered Mr. Eldridge to pay half of the amount due, totaling $3,500 and excused him from the remainder of the balance, due to the factor the Mr. Eldridge was unemployed during the months that the child support was being accrued. William H. Putman, Legal Research, Analysis and Writing 517 (2nd 2010) Issue: Did the trial court act properly when it excused Mr. Eldridge from paying $3,500 of the back child support? Brief Answer: Yes, the trial court did act properly in excusing Mr. Eldridge from not paying the full total of the missed child support. Under the Indiana statutory and case law Mr. Eldridge did not have full obligation of child support due to his unemployment status. Analysis: The Indiana rule governing spousal financial child support is I.C.
Mr. Read guaranteed the company’s promissory note in payment for the stock. Ms. Read didn’t report the down payment of $200,000 and principal payments she received from MMP in her tax return, except for including the interest income from MMP’s installment promissory note in her tax return for 1988, 1989 and 1990. On Mr. Read’s side, he did not report any income with respect to Ms. Read’s transfer of MMP stock. The IRS treated the stock redemption as a sale exchange and claimed that the principal payments from MMP created a long-term capital gain on Ms. Read’s tax return. The IRS had no concerns about Ms. Read’s interest income under the installment promissory note reported in her tax return.
Leah Earp 1. Ronderos should win the lawsuit because the property was rightfully Schock’s already and Ronderos is not a merchant therefore the risk of loss is Schock’s. 6. The dealer cannot reclaim the automobile because the buy was a good faith purchaser and the dealer can only make a lawsuit against B. 10.
Green’s gambling activities do not qualify as a trade or business, can he deduct his gambling-related travel and lodging expenses against his gambling winnings? Applicable Case Law, Code & Regulations Per Section 165(d) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), a taxpayer may deduct their gambling losses to the extent of their gambling winnings. However, Section 262 of the IRC indicates, “…no deduction shall be allowed for personal, living, or family expenses.” In ruling on Stanley B. and Rose M. Whitten v. Commission of Internal Revenue, the US Tax Court has stipulated that travel and lodging expenses are not considered losses and therefore cannot be used as a deduction. Conclusion Given the current tax regulations and case law, travel and lodging expenses associated to Dr. Green’s gambling activities cannot be categorized as a loss. The Tax Court clearly established in Stanley B. and Rose M. Whitten v. Commission of Internal Revenue the difference between gambling losses and travel and lodging expenses in the closing of the judgment wherein they stated there is no need, “…to eliminate the distinction between wagering losses, i.e., the amount of wagers or bets lost on wagering transactions, and expenses related thereto, e.g., expenses for transportation, meals, and lodging incurred to engage in wagering transactions… Unlike a wager or bet, petitioner incurred the expenses in question in exchange for specific goods and services, such as transportation,
Jones purchase the stock of Smithon outright leaving Smithon intact? The stock should not be purchase by Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones acquiring the assets, liabilities and also would inherit the contractual obligations of the selling corporation, would, be the results of the purchase. In lay terms, he has bought the existing Smithon Corporation and he is responsible of ensuring daily operations run efficiently but the tax aspect of acquisition he is responsible for existing and any future tax liabilities that the selling corporation had. It would be my advice for Mr. Jones to not buy the stock because of the liability of current and future tax obligations which Mr. Jones would incur from the purchase of the stock.
They again entered his car, but instead of driving south toward her place of employment, he drove in the opposite direction. Some conversation was had in which he stated that it was possible for a person to die quickly and not be able to make amends for anything done in the past, and he referred to the possibility of “judgment day” occurring suddenly. Mrs. Damms’ testimony as to what then took place is as follow: “when he was telling me about this being judgment day, he pulled a cardboard box from under the seat of the car and brought it up to the seat and
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.
Question 14 In strict liability offenses, the prosecution must prove: Question 15 A steals B’s car. The police find A with B’s car, but the car has been mostly disassembled and sold. At his arraignment, A pleads nolo cotendere. The nolo contender plea will: Question 16 The right to a speedy trial: Question 17 The city of East Cleveland had a municipal ordinance that regulated who could live together as a family in a single-family dwelling unit. Lnez Moore, an elderly grandmother, was convicted of violating the ordinance because she had two grandsons who were cousins living in the same house with her, and that living arrangement could not be considered a single family under the definition of family in the ordinance.