Case law

Firestenberg v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Jul 24, 2025

Plaintiff’s claim that she is a nonresident alien with wages unrelated to the U.S. is not objectively reasonable and is clearly frivolous for the reasons set forth earlier in this Decision. … Department of Revenue, TC-MD 170396G, 2018 WL 3808557 *1 (Or Tax M Div, Aug 6, 2018), taxpayer asserted “money received from private employers did not qualify as ‘wages’ under the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) and was therefore

Avery v. Clackamas County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Aug 12, 2013

Regardless, Bunick’s knowledge and experience in real estate development was convincingly established at trial. … The court has already stated that it finds Bunick qualified to render opinions about property development.

Punish and Indu Malhotra v. Director, Division of Taxation

New Jersey Tax Court · Dec 21, 2021

A scrivener’s error or clerical error is well established as a non-judgment-based error. See, Lockwood v. Walsh, 137 N.J. Eq. 445, 450 (Prerog. … Clearly, material mistakes drive deficiencies, but that does not mean that all material mistakes are misrepresentations.

Ratchford v. C.C. Mangum, Inc.

North Carolina Industrial Commission · Jul 2, 1999

The whole of the evidence establishes plaintiff had valid potential entitlements to benefits under both § 97-29 and § 97-30 , not just § 97-31 . … Properly applying the Vernon standard — in light of numerous appellate decisions since the settlement agreement was entered into — clearly establishes the clincher was unfair.

N Re Skybridge Terrace, LLC Litig.

2015 NCBC 26 · North Carolina Business Court · Mar 23, 2015

Here, in summary, the controlling uncontested facts established by the record include: a. … Phase I and Phase II were clearly described in the Declaration as separate phases and separate parcels.

Tone v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Feb 24, 2017

Plaintiff is allowed a deduction based on those expenses. 14 Plaintiff’s home office does not qualify as a regular business establishment because it does not fall within any of the exceptions listed … Mere “goodwill” entertainment is insufficient to qualify for a deduction.

In re Noyes

5 Dem. Sur. 309 · New York Surrogate's Court · Dec 15, 1886

Now, it seems to me that this principle of election, which is very clearly enunciated in Havens v. Sackett ( 15 N. Y., 365 ), must control the disposition of the case at bar. … Ruthven (supra): “ The rule that a legacy is payable one year after the testator’s death only applies in the absence of a direction in the will controlling the' general practice established by the courts, or of other decisive

Hughes v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

2016 Ohio 7353 · Ohio Court of Claims · Sep 20, 2016

should have special restraints. {¶38} It is plaintiff’s contention that when he was prepared for the transport in the morning he should have been placed in soft restraints or oversized restraints, but the evidence clearly … establishes that, as a general rule, an inmate must have a valid medical restriction issued by a physician specifying the need for such restraints.

Worley v. Moore

2018 NCBC 113 · North Carolina Business Court · Nov 2, 2018

The Merger Information Statement clearly stated that the earn out payments were not guaranteed, but instead were “contingent” and “uncertain.” (ECF No. 124.1, at pp. … The Merger Information Statement also provided information about the time frames for payment of the earn outs, but qualified that information by stating that the specified timeline would apply only “if any” payments were

Scr-Tech LLC v. Evonik Energy Servs. LLC

2011 NCBC 26 · North Carolina Business Court · Jul 22, 2011

may be met by proving that an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonexistent. 90 If the movant successfully makes such a showing, the burden then shifts to the nonmovant to establish the specific facts establishing … The fact that the process also might have other benefits does not qualify this step as a trade secret. Defendants’ Motion with respect to this general process step is GRANTED.

Crescent Univ. City Venture, LLC v. Ap Atl., Inc.

2019 NCBC 48 · North Carolina Business Court · Aug 14, 2019

The construction industry in particular would suffer, for it is in this  industry that we see most clearly the importance of the precise allocation of risk as secured by contract. … The ordinary purchaser of a home is not qualified to determine when or where a defect exists.

Tolbert, Christoper v. MPW Industrial Services at Volkswagen

2016 TN WC 31 · Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims · Feb 10, 2016

The DCN clearly indicates that, prior to the Expedited Hearing, Mr. Weatherman and his client had notice of the disputed nature of the issues raised by Mr. Tolbert during the Expedited Hearing. … Tolbert established that, at a hearing on the merits, he is likely to prevail in establishing his claim to additional temporary disability benefits. The Court discusses below Mr.

Calvert's Lessee v. Eden

2 Md. 279 · General Court of Virginia · May 15, 1789

Is it agreeable to na-.Sural justice, that a judicature so partial should be established ? … It is clearly not barrable by fine or recovery, either in England or Maryland; is it then barrable any other way?

Matter of Rowe

566 A.2d 1001 · Court on the Judiciary of Delaware. · Oct 27, 1989

He also advised his son that he might qualify for the First Offender Program, provided he met the requirements. … The Rules establish that the proper standard of proof in cases before this Court is clear and convincing evidence. Ct.Jud.R. 7(b).

Tiller v. Phillips

2025 NCBC 63 · North Carolina Business Court · Oct 15, 2025

“The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction.” Lau v. Constable, 2022 NCBC LEXIS 75, at *10 (N.C. Super. Ct. July 11, 2022). 71. … This privilege “is qualified, not absolute,” and is generally overcome by factual allegations suggesting that the corporate officers acted for the officer’s “own benefit” or “personal interest.”

Jackson ex dem. Varick v. Waldron

13 Wend. 178 · Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · Dec 15, 1834

Alherly, in his valuable treaties on marriage settlements, is clearly of the opinion that such interests are assignable, and may be bound by a settlement at law. Aiherly, 55. … the elder Eden intended to devise and actually did devise this lot to his son Joseph in thé same tenure as the other lands which he gave to him; which tenure has been repeatedly decidedby this court to be a determinable, qualified

In re the Estate of Dryer

143 Misc. 310 · New York Surrogate's Court · Apr 7, 1932

Act, § 143) ; but it does show that those missing parts did modify and qualify the portions that remain, in that possession of any remainder is literally postponed till the death of the husband; and, probably, that then there … As to the trust for the “ uses and benefits ” of the husband for and during his fife, with the remainder, if any, over to the three cousins, it cannot be said that the contents of those clauses has been “ clearly and distinctly

Williams v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

2018 Ohio 1721 · Ohio Court of Claims · Apr 27, 2018

with Wilford and the underground store. {¶49} Plaintiff attaches significance to testimony by Wilford that he had an agreement with corrections officers to settle disputes “in house” if no weapon was involved, but clearly … But, the evidence failed to establish what the weapon was made from, and to attribute the weapon to a light fixture component is purely speculative.

Finley v. Department of Revenue

Oregon Tax Court · Nov 15, 2012

Focus ORS 316.587(8)(b) does not specifically require the prior year‟s return to be timely filed in order to qualify for safe harbor. … Clearly, subsection (8) does not expressly require that the prior year‟s return be timely filed.

BMC Software, Inc., Etc. v. Director, Division of Taxation

New Jersey Tax Court · May 26, 2017

The issue here is whether Subsidiary’s payments to Parent (1) qualify as intangible costs and expenses for purposes of N.J.S.A. 54:10A-4.4(b); and (2) if so, whether they qualify for an exception from the addback. … As non-exhaustive examples, the court noted circumstances likely to establish unreasonableness would be “unfair duplicative taxation; a technical failure to qualify the transactions under the statutory exceptions; an inability