Cases

Opinion by Mr. Justice Simpson, We are asked by these six appeals to review the action of the court below in determining the amount of inheritance tax due by the estate of Henry C. Frick, deceased, to this Commonwealth, of which he was a resident, and in which he was domiciled when he died on December 21, 1919. A number of points are raised; some concern the interpretation of the Constitution of the United Sta

THOMSON, District Judge. The executors of the will of Henry C. Frick have brought this action against the collector of internal revenue for the Twenty-Third District of Pennsylvania to recover the sum of $108,657.38, alleged to have been erroneously assessed and collected under the provisions of section 402 (f) of the Revenue Act of 1918 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 6336%c). The case was tried without a jury, on án agreed stat

268 U.S. 473 (1925) FRICK ET AL. v. PENNSYLVANIA. Nos. 122, 123, 124, 125. Supreme Court of United States. Argued December 7, 1923. Decided June 1, 1925. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. *475 Messrs. George Wharton Pepper and George B. Gordon for plaintiffs in error. Mr. David A

Mr. Justice Van Devanter delivered the opinion of the Court. These four eases involve the constitutional, validity of particular features of a statute of Pennsylvania imposing a tax on the transfer of property by will or intestate laws. Act No. 258; Pa. Laws 1919, 521.

Miller, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. A very difficult and embarrassing- question arises in this case, as to the construction of the will of Rachel Watson, executed in December, 1834, and admitted to probate in January, 1835. By this will the testatrix, after directing payment of her debts, devises to her friend, Zachariah Woollen, his heirs, executors and administrators, all the rest, residue and rem

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557- 1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-12812 M. CHRISTINE SHAFFER, executrix,1 vs. COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE. Suffolk.

Phipps, Judge. Sharon Stewart, individually and as administratrix of the estate of Louise Stewart, and Marilyn Mason sued Louise Stewart’s surgeon for medical malpractice. Judgment was entered against them. They appeal, challenging the admission of certain testimony by a pathologist. Because the record does not show error, we affirm. Louise Stewart was admitted to a hospital on March 17, 2000, complaining

Digitally signed by Reporter of Decisions Reason: I attest to Illinois Official Reports the accuracy and

2020 IL App (1st) 191970 THIRD DIVISION September 9, 2020 No. 1-19-1970 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT FARA BIUNDO, as Special Administrator of the Estate of

ORDER CERTIFYING QUESTION OF LAW TO THE MONTANA SUPREME COURT ORDER I Pursuant to Rule 44(c) of the Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure, we respectfully request the Montana Supreme Court to exercise its discretion to adjudicate the following question of Montana law: Is Mont.Code Ann. § 39-71-413, as

KLEINFELD, Circuit Judge. This drug conspiracy case presents two principal issues. The first is whether the district court erred in ordering defense counsel not to talk to his client during an overnight recess. The second is whether the district court abused its discretion in excluding expert testimony about the defendant’s subnormal intelligence. We reverse.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-1949-15T4 DEBRA WARREN, Executrix of the ESTATE OF ROBERT WARREN and DEBRA WARREN, APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION Individually, December 7, 2016 Plaintiffs-Respondents, APPEL

Opinion by JUDGE TAUBMAN 1 In this dependency and neglect action, M.E.Z. (mother) and J.E.Z. (father) appeal the trial court's judgment terminating their parent-child legal relationship with C.Z. (the child). We consider, as a matter of first impression, whether the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) pre-empts section 19-3-604(1)(b)(I), C.R.S8.2014, which authorizes termination based on a finding that no a

Hotten, J. This case arises from the Comptroller of the Treasury's ("Comptroller") assessment of estate tax and penalties against a Maryland estate that included the value of a particular type of marital trust. The marital trust, which was created in Michigan, consisted of qualified terminable interest property or "QTIP" that was reported on the decedent's federal estate tax return, but

KURT S. ODENWALD, Judge. Introduction Donald Bryant (“Bryant”) appeals from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Lawrence Brody (“Bro-dy”) and Bryan Cave (collectively “Respondents”) in Bryant’s action for legal malpractice against Respondents. Bryant brought the underlying action alleging two counts of negligence in connection with an antenuptial agreement prepared by Respond

484 F.Supp.2d 876 (2007) Randall L. WOODRUFF, Plaintiff, v. Gregory A. WILSON, Jo Ann Mason, Gerald Coleman, Suzanne Hornstein, Clara McGee, Karen Powers, Robert Stark, Margaret Ellis, Avona Connell, Peter Sybinsky, Judith Becherer, Karen Davis, Debra Wilson, Diane Webster, Peter Sybinsky, Defendants. No. 1:00-cv-00306-LJM-JMS. United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division.<

CORRECTED In the United States Court of Federal Claims Nos. 20-44; 20-47; 20-55 (consolidated) (Filed: 23 December 2021) *************************************** ROBERT L. CAMPO, et al., * * Motion to Dismiss; RCFC 12(b)(6); Plaintiffs, * Fifth Amendment; Takings; Oysters;

In the United States Court of Federal Claims Nos. 20-44; 20-47; 20-55 (consolidated) (Filed: 23 December 2021) *************************************** ROBERT L. CAMPO, et al., * * Motion to Dismiss; RCFC 12(b)(6); Plaintiffs, * Fifth Amendment; Takings; Oysters; * Co

EVELEIGH, J. The plaintiffs, the coexecutors of the estate of Helen B. Brooks, 1 appeal from the trial court's rendering of summary judgment in favor of the defendant, the Commissioner of Revenue Services. 2 The trial court upheld

Guy, J. The issue in this appeal is whether RCW 9A.44.150, which, in limited circumstances, permits a child witness to testify via one-way closed-circuit television rather than in the physical presence of the accused, violates the guarantees of the state or federal confrontation clause. We hold that the right of an accused to confront witnesses “face to face,” as guaranteed by our state constitution, like the r