Case law

M.J. Ocean, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation

23 N.J. Tax 646 · New Jersey Tax Court · Feb 15, 2008

Acquisitions, supra, a condition to New Jersey’s waiver of sovereign immunity as to refund claims and thus is not subject to extension based on equitable considerations. … “The intent to waive need not be stated expressly, provided the circumstances clearly show that the party knew of the right and then abandoned it, either by design or indifference.” Ibid.

In re the Estate of Lyons

13 Misc. 2d 287 · New York Surrogate's Court · May 8, 1958

This section clearly refers only to the power of a trustee to invade the principal of a trust in favor of himself (Matter of Peabody, 277 App. Div. 905 ). … It is well established that when the acts of trustees call for the exercise of discretion and judgment, the concurrence of all trustees is necessary. (Cooper v. Illinois Cent. R. R. Co., 38 App. Div. 22 , 28; Fritz v.

In re the Estate of Miller

48 Misc. 2d 815 · New York Surrogate's Court · Dec 28, 1965

That is clearly no basis for disqualifying him as executor. Executors frequently have personal claims against the estate and there are specific statutory provisions covering that situation. … An executor is prohibited from passing upon his own debt or claim and must establish it before the Surrogate and obtain judicial approval for its payment (Surrogate’s Ct.

In re the Construction of the Will of Gulbenkian

16 Misc. 2d 1054 · New York Surrogate's Court · Jan 28, 1959

Moreover, it is clearly apparent from the reading of the entire will that the brothers of decedent, subject only to the provision made for the benefit of decedent’s widow, were the primary objects of his bounty, a circumstance … , unless the language qualifying or cutting down the gift to the brothers is equally as clear and decisive as that which created the vested remainder.

Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

2011 NCBC 30 · North Carolina Business Court · Aug 8, 2011

That is, Lorillard claims that it is immune from any Section 75–1.1 claim grounded on its having brought the litigation. … “[A] practice is unfair when it offends established public policy” and “when the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers.” Eastover Ridge, L.L.C. v.

In re the Estate of Fordan

5 Misc. 2d 372 · New York Surrogate's Court · Nov 16, 1956

Kobre was not qualified to represent a party to a proceeding in this court because of the restrictions imposed by section 470 of the Judiciary Law of the State of New York. “ A person, regularly admitted to practice as an … The reasons for the rule are clearly set forth in the decision in Richardson v. Brooklyn City & Newtown R. R. Co.

In re the Estate of McCormick

169 Misc. 672 · New York Surrogate's Court · Nov 30, 1938

Since it is thoroughly established that amendments to the Veteran Relief acts are effective retroactively (Singleton v. Cheek, 284 U. S. 493, 497 ; White v. … That the proceeds of war risk insurance clearly come within the description of “ other reward ” is obvious and has been fully developed earlier in this discussion.

Benton v. Department of Revenue

7 Or. Tax 162 · Oregon Tax Court · Jul 27, 1977

Since intent must be ascertained from overt acts, the assessor should consider many elements in reaching a conclusion as to whether the use of a particular parcel of land qualifies as farm-vise land. * * *” The provisions … Exhibits introduced by all parties illustrated clearly that the subject tenant housing was located in the orchards.

Buckeye Hospitality Dupont, LLC, nka Sandpiper Fort Wayne LLC v. Stacey O'Day, in her official capacity as Allen County Assessor

Indiana Tax Court · Feb 28, 2020

final determination is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of 4 discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … Tax Ct. 1980) (providing that where it appears the Legislature amends a statute to express its original intention more clearly, the normal presumption that an amendment changes a statute’s meaning

Poellnitz, Robert v. Resolute Forest Products

2016 TN WC 159 · Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims · Jul 8, 2016

Poellnitz] clearly has a neurologic deficit within the distribution of the left C8 nerve root. … Poellnitz satisfied the necessary requirements to qualify for medical benefits.

Dodson v. Wright State University

91 Ohio Misc. 2d 57 · Ohio Court of Claims · Dec 3, 1997

The common words utilized in a contract will be given their plain and ordinary meaning, unless manifest absurdity results or some other meaning is clearly evidenced from the face or overall contents of the contract. … The court finds that the findings of the Ad Hoc Committee establish that defendant had just cause for removing plaintiff from his position as chair.

Wrightstown Borough v. Medved

4 N.J. Tax 582 · New Jersey Tax Court · Sep 20, 1982

The language utilized clearly establishes an intent to limit the benefits thereof to widows. By its failure to employ terms such as “spouse” or “widower,” widowers were specifically not included. … Nor was there any provision to continue the exemption of a qualified totally disabled veteran who died after his active duty in time of war by extending the exemption to his widow.

Haynie v. Dept. of Rev.

19 Or. Tax 488 · Oregon Tax Court · Jul 28, 2008

Accordingly, "disqualification" was understood to occur both because of "bad" acts and because of other causes, which clearly could be the expiration of the statutory period. … Other reasons could clearly include expiration of the special assessment time period. *Page 498 3.

In re the Application for the Adoption of Mendelsohn

180 Misc. 147 · New York Surrogate's Court · Jan 22, 1943

After residing in the State of New York for approximately six years, during which period the infant was born, the parents moved to the State of New Jersey establishing their residence in New Brunswick. … Farkas failed to qualify either as executor or testamentary guardian. The petitioner Joseph D. Farkas is the sole surviving grandparent, *149 Under these circumstances the respondents Reave M. Rosenthal and Arnold B.

Somasundaram v. Kent State Univ.

2013 Ohio 5937 · Ohio Court of Claims · Aug 7, 2013

Moreover, generally, private citizens do not have the right to enforce government contracts as a third-party beneficiary on their own behalf, unless a different intention is clearly manifested in the contract. Doe v. … covered by sections 1345.01 to 1345.13 of the Revised Code, or with respect to any claim arising from a consumer transaction subject to such sections.” {¶ 15} R.C. 2743.02(A)(1) provides: “The state hereby waives its immunity

Hometowne Associates, L.P. v. Maley

839 N.E.2d 269 · Indiana Tax Court · Dec 16, 2005

may only reverse a final determination of the Indiana Board if it is: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … To Qualify for LIHTCs, a project must reserve a portion of its rental units for use by low-income households only, with rents on those units limited to a percentage of qualifying income.

Kentron, Inc. v. State Board of Tax Commissioners

572 N.E.2d 1366 · Indiana Tax Court · Jun 11, 1991

Clearly, Stanadyne is directly on point in the matter before the State Board. The Taxpayers are seeking exemptions that were not claimed on their returns for the years at issue. … The evidence clearly shows Kentron did not claim an exemption.

In re to Declare the Death of Lafuente

191 Misc. 2d 577 · New York Surrogate's Court · May 15, 2002

Here, the evidence clearly indicates that the absentee was in the immediate vicinity of the World Trade Center and, in all likelihood, in the North Tower when the first airliner struck. … Nor has a DNA profile caused a positive identification from body parts and items of personal property recovered from the attack site. *584 The proof has clearly established that the absentee was exposed to the terrorist attacks

Federal Housing Commissioner v. Reese

62 Misc. 2d 522 · Civil Court of the City of New York · Mar 2, 1970

So empowered, he adopted rule or regula *525 tion section 280.30 under which he established maximum rents for these and similar properties. … The Supreme Court .of the United States has clearly established that exemption for the sovereign or its agencies does not violate the due process or equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment because such a classification

In re the Estate of Shapiro

15 Misc. 2d 484 · New York Surrogate's Court · Dec 9, 1958

as trustees to receive said share * * * said share shall be payable forthwith to such designees as may qualify and accept the trusteeship, Trustees, Beneficiaries.” … The text of paragraph (b) of article twenty-fifth refers clearly and plainly to the date of death of the last survivor of the four beneficiaries.