Case law

Epes Logistics Servs., Inc. v. De Piante

2025 NCBC 10 · North Carolina Business Court · Mar 11, 2025

Thereafter, Epes obtained the OTI License, which listed De Piante as both the Qualifying Individual of Epes and Vice President. (J.A. 0863.) … [is] inadequate to establish [an at-will employee’s] obligations as fiduciary in nature”). 105.

In re the Estate of Balfe

152 Misc. 739 · New York Surrogate's Court · Sep 13, 1934

Therefore, even if the immunity from liability provided for by the testator does not cover the case, we think that there has been no fault and that it was error so to find.” … his mind in regard to the sale or retention of any particular security, that question was passed on to another committee known as the Manhattan administration committee which in turn, if it desired the advice of better qualified

Selden v. Coalter

2 Va. 533 · General Court of Virginia · Nov 15, 1818

In both cases, the Will must be signed by the Testator, as and for his last Will and Testament; this fact in the first case, is to be established by the testimony of the attesting witnesses ; in the other case, it is established … by proof, it exists certainly, perfectly, entirely; or, it is not established at all.

Selden v. Coalter

2 Va. 553 · General Court of Virginia · Nov 15, 1818

In both cases, the Will must be signed by the Testator, as and for his last Will and Testament; this fact in the first case, is to be established by the testimony of the attesting witnesses; in the other case, it is established … by proof, it exists certainly, perfectly, entirely; or, it is not established at all.

Selden v. Coalter

2 Va. 553 · General Court of Virginia · Nov 15, 1818

In both cases, the Will must be signed by the Testator, as and for his last Will and Testament; this fact in the first case, is to be established by the testimony of the attesting witnesses; in the other case, it is established … by proof, it exists certainly, perfectly, entirely; or, it is not established at all.

Anderson v. State ex rel. Allred

62 S.W.2d 107 · Texas Commission of Appeals · Jun 24, 1933

The authorities sustain the exception to the foregoing rule that the state’s immunity from suit does not extend to a suit against state officers to enjoin the enforcement of an invalid law to the injury of the legal rights … Subject to certain fixed exceptions, the rule that injunctive proceedings will not he permitted to stay the enforcement of penal statutes is established beyond cavil.

Opinion No. (2003)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Sep 15, 2003

. ¶ 4 The Legislature established a date, known as the "normal retirement date" by which members may retire, and during the remainder of the member's lifetime, receive annual retirement pay. 2003 Okla. Sess. … Supp. 2002, § 2-305[ 47-2-305 ] (A)). ¶ 5 By the plain language of Section 2-302(A) of Title 47, it is apparent that the Legislature intended mandatory membership in OLERS for all those who qualify as members.

Filippova v. Frmingham Zoning Board of Appeals

Massachusetts Land Court · Jun 23, 2021

The section provides that wireless communications facilities are permitted only by special permit, and further establishes conditions, maintenance requirements, removal requirements, dimensional requirements, and design requirements … [Note 33] From this language one can surmise that WCFs may only be located in commercial and possibly industrial zones, but clearly may not be located within or closer than 300 feet to residential zoning districts.

Selden v. Coalter

2 Va. 533 · General Court of Virginia · Nov 15, 1818

In both cases, the Will must be signed by the Testator, as and for his last Will and Testament; this fact in the first case, is to be established by the testimony of the attesting witnesses ; in the other case, it is established … by proof, it exists certainly, perfectly, entirely; or, it is not established at all.

Hackensack Water Co. v. Borough of Haworth

1 N.J. Tax 73 · New Jersey Tax Court · Apr 1, 1980

. *79 As to the uplands, the basic value conclusions of the experts, both of whom were well qualified, hardly differed. … The testimony of its appraiser and engineer clearly demonstrated that the cost of reclaiming these lands would far exceed their market value.

Citrus Hill Manufacturing Co. v. State

29 Fla. Supp. 2d 217 · State of Florida Division of Administrative Hearings · Dec 9, 1987

Action which is directly repugnant to and inconsistent with the federal regulations on the same subject clearly contravenes the legislative delegation of authority to the Department to take actions regarding the marking and … Labeling may include any truthful and non-misleading qualifying adjectives.”

Stanley Miller Constr. Co. v. Ohio School Facilities Comm.

2010 Ohio 1528 · Ohio Court of Claims · Mar 1, 2010

By Reot’s own admission, his prior experience with construction scheduling does not qualify him as an expert in the critical path method (CPM). … The evidence establishes that this letter was in reference to Way’s interference.

Burlington Northern, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

8 Or. Tax 19 · Oregon Tax Court · Feb 14, 1979

This can be clearly illustrated by reference to the 1976 edition of the Yearbook of Railroad Facts, published by the Association of American Railroads. … Whether such testimony is admissible has not been clearly decided. See McCormick, Law of Evidence (West 1954), "Expert’s Opinion Based on Reports of Others,” 32-33, and cases cited therein; Reid v.

R. M. v. C. M.

857 A.2d 1037 · Delaware Family Court · May 17, 2004

Premo’s opinion (Emphasis added), the real estate was clearly inherited.” … Premo explained, the business, which had not been overseen by him, but instead had been overseen by less qualified bookkeepers, had failed for many years to take off their books lost or obsolete items for which depreciation

Jutte Elec., Ltd. v. Ohio Facilities Constr. Comm.

2016 Ohio 8580 · Ohio Court of Claims · Dec 13, 2016

Zetts did not investigate Ben York’s background to determine if he was qualified to act as the project manager on a project of this magnitude. … This Article 8 claim was clearly late as it was received approximately four months after the project was substantially completed.

New Jersey Natural Gas Co. v. Director, Division of Taxation

24 N.J. Tax 59 · New Jersey Tax Court · Apr 17, 2008

Ryan’s home office qualify as a regular place of business for New Jersey CBT purposes, but avoid that characterization for Connecticut tax purposes. For example, maintenance of Ms. … So that twenty years from now neither taxpayers, the Director, nor the courts need struggle with this issue, I urge the Legislature and the Director to modernize and more clearly state the qualifying facts which will allow

Selden v. Coalter

2 Va. 533 · General Court of Virginia · Nov 15, 1818

In both cases, the Will must be signed by the Testator, as and for his last Will and Testament; this fact in the first case, is to be established by the testimony of the attesting witnesses ; in the other case, it is established … by proof, it exists certainly, perfectly, entirely; or, it is not established at all.

Selden v. Coalter

2 Va. 553 · General Court of Virginia · Nov 15, 1818

In both cases, the Will must be signed by the Testator, as and for his last Will and Testament; this fact in the first case, is to be established by the testimony of the attesting witnesses; in the other case, it is established … by proof, it exists certainly, perfectly, entirely; or, it is not established at all.

Heinitsh v. Wachovia Bank

2007 NCBC 19 · North Carolina Business Court · Jun 11, 2007

) {22} With the closing of the estate, Wachovia was able to establish the Marital Trust as contemplated by Reg., Sr.’s will. … For tax reasons, Wachovia established two trusts—a Qualifying Terminable Interest Property trust and a Nonqualifying Terminable Interest Property trust (collectively “the Trusts”).

Harris, Jessie v. Express Employment Professionals

2026 TN WC 28 · Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims · Mar 23, 2026

Applying these principles, Express at no point clearly articulated a “rule” that Mr. … He is well-qualified to give opinions on Mr. Harris’s orthopedic condition. But he is on the same footing as Dr.