Case law

People v. Perez

31 N.Y.3d 964 · Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · Mar 27, 2018

The majority's conclusion that the record supports defendant's forcible detention and frisk is inconsistent with our established law. … Nor may forcible police action be based on a person's efforts to avoid confrontation, which defendant clearly sought to do here by turning around and facing the wall.

Ball v. Morgan Drive Away

North Carolina Industrial Commission · Jan 6, 2004

In its capacity to transport, the defendant-employer has been authorized, qualified and registered by the proper state and federal agencies, including the ICC. 4. … Under these facts plaintiff was clearly in control and operating his leased truck in furtherance of defendant-employer's trip-assignment.

Starks v. Texas-Capital Contractors, Inc.

North Carolina Industrial Commission · Jan 23, 2002

One method for establishing disability is the use of the Industrial Commission Form 21; written agreements between employers and employees using Form 21 and approved by the Commission qualify as awards of the Commission and … In the Opinion and Award of February 19, 2001 written by Deputy Commissioner Pfeiffer, it clearly shows a conflict of evidence with regards to the opinions of Dr. Rogers and Dr.

Lawrence v. Umlic-Five Corp.

2007 NCBC 20 · North Carolina Business Court · Jun 18, 2007

{28} “A Rule 12(c) motion should be granted only when ‘the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” … ) {43} Plaintiffs, however, fail to set forth facts to support these claims, and they further qualify their allegations as being made “upon information and belief.” (Compl. ¶¶ 22–23.)

Ironbound Intermodal Industries, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation

27 N.J. Tax 347 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jul 19, 2013

Summary judgment is proper if “a discriminating search of the merits in the pleadings, depositions and admissions on file, together with the affidavits submitted on the motion clearly shows not to present any genuine issue … N.J.S.A 54:32B-12(b) provides that all receipts for property or services of the type mentioned in N.J.S.A. 54:32B-3(a)(b)(c) and (f) are presumed subject to tax under the Act unless the contrary is established.

Johnson & Morris Pllc v. Abdelbaky & Boes, Pllc

2016 NCBC 76 · North Carolina Business Court · Oct 11, 2016

In fact, the logos clearly are dissimilar. (Haas Decl. ¶¶ 4, 6.) . 15. … Olsen is not also a qualified and competent pediatric dentist, albeit less experienced than Dr. Johnson.

Barott v. Department of Revenue

Oregon Tax Court · Apr 30, 2013

Tax Court determined that the taxpayer’s jeep was not a “qualified nonpersonal use vehicle” similar to the following “specialized-use vehicles”: “clearly marked police and fire vehicles, ambulances, hearses, vehicles … leased by the person operating such establishment.

Question Submitted by: Senator Mary B. Boren, Oklahoma State Senate, District 16

2024 OK AG 5 · Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Feb 28, 2024

Executive Director of the ODOT ¶8 The position of Executive Director of ODOT clearly meets each element of the foregoing Century Indemnity test. First, the position, is expressly established by ODOT's enabling statutes. … OAC 731:10-1-5(7). ¶18 The position of Executive Director of OTA is thus clearly established by law and provides definite duties. Therefore, the first two elements of the Century Indemnity test are met.

In re the Appraisal of the Estate of Burhans

100 Misc. 646 · New York Surrogate's Court · Jul 15, 1917

Div. 8 , where the court said: “ The right to *651 impose the tax must rest upon evidence sufficient in probative force to bring it within the statute, and must establish a case from which the law clearly authorized its imposition … It seems to me that this case is clearly distinguishable from Matter of Gould .

Analog Devices, Inc. v. Michalski

2006 NCBC 14 · North Carolina Business Court · Nov 1, 2006

{11} Maxim, Michalski and Karnik deny the allegations of the Complaint and assert that the trade secrets claimed by Analog do not qualify as trade secrets. … Whether the claimed trade secrets qualify for protection and whether or not Maxim is using them are central issues in the case.

Lance International, Inc. v. First National City Bank

24 Misc. 3d 1109 · Civil Court of the City of New York · Apr 6, 2009

Although the foregoing is not a complete history, clearly the case has lain fallow for years on end. In or about 2007, plaintiffs counsel filed a notice of trial. … This rule is qualified by statute to provide that a corporation retains a limited de jure existence for the purpose of winding up (Business Corporation Law § 1005 [a] [1]; § 1006). . .

Stec v. Fuzion Inv. Capital, LLC

2012 NCBC 24 · North Carolina Business Court · Apr 30, 2012

{33} Additionally, non-outsiders “enjoy qualified immunity from liability for inducing their corporation or other entity to breach its contract with an employee.” Lenzer v. Flaherty, 106 N.C. … This language would indicate that it is far from established that such duties exist.

Mikvah Association v. Township of Teaneck

New Jersey Tax Court · Aug 14, 2018

“If there is no exempt [religious organization] . . . there can be no parsonage exemption.”). 10  However, the statute clearly establishes that one of the requirements … The established rule is that the court has no business telling a religious organization how to practice its faith.

Everett v. N.C. Dept. of Transportation

North Carolina Industrial Commission · May 15, 2009

Are the claims barred by the public duty doctrine or the immunity of public officers? c. Was a named employee of defendant negligent? d. … Sutton opined that plaintiffs' vehicle's tire marks clearly show that plaintiffs' car was already beginning to yaw (slide sideways) as it left the pavement.

Safety Test & Equip. Co. v. Am. Safety Util. Corp.

2016 NCBC 98 · North Carolina Business Court · Dec 16, 2016

Poindexter has substantial education, training, background, and experience in economics, and has been qualified frequently by courts to present expert testimony. … The Court preliminarily concludes that, subject to a proper evidentiary foundation established at trial, Dr.

Cai v. Multnomah County Assessor, Tc-Md 100205d (or.tax 1-11-2011)

Oregon Tax Court · Jan 11, 2011

Unfortunately, Plaintiff's repair/replacement bids were more than 18 months after the assessment date and did not clearly state whether the bids were to cure the problem or replace the siding. … Even though Plaintiff is familiar with his property, he did not qualify himself as an expert on valuation.

Caddell v. Lufkin Land & Lumber Co.

255 S.W. 397 · Texas Commission of Appeals · Nov 7, 1923

presumption was ráised that all debts were barred by limitation; the power of the executor to sell community property expired with the death of the surviving wife; the record in administration did not show that the executor had qualified … Clearly that deed was not void, but at most could only be said to contain a latent ambiguity.

Ruggieri, June v. Amazon.com, LLC

2023 TN WC App. 36 · Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board · Aug 10, 2023

In addition, the court concluded that Employee had not established entitlement to temporary disability benefits and denied those benefits “at this time.” … As stated previously, the trial judge stressed at the beginning of the compensation hearing that this was a “new trial,” and the court clearly informed both parties that all necessary proof relevant to the issues at hand

New Beginnings Christian Center Inc v. Multnomah County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Jan 13, 2014

Brutke was an appeal from a disqualification during which the plaintiffs provided additional information establishing that their property qualified for special assessment. … The subject property qualified for exemption under ORS 307.140 in tax year 2006, and remained qualified throughout the years at issue.

Cooke v. Department of Revenue

Oregon Tax Court · Apr 3, 2014

The ledgers clearly identify the “time in,” “time out,” “hours,” and “total” for each day that child care was provided. (Id.) Weekly payments are identified by the amount and the notation “Pd.” (Id.) … Plaintiffs have the burden of proof and must establish their case by a “preponderance” of the evidence. ORS 305.427.