Cases

16 F.3d 403 DeWitt (William G.), Enders (John B.), Guelcher (Thomas C.),Julier (Henry S.), Speice (James H.)v.Hammermill Salaried Employees' Restated Retirement Plan,Hammermill Thrift Plan, Hammermill SupplementalThrift Plan, Oskin (David W.),International Paper Company NO. 93-3198 United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Dec 13, 1993

TUTTLE, Circuit Judge: This case is a companion ease to the Florida Bank at Lakeland v. United States, 443 F.2d 467, decided April 26, 1971, in that both cases deal with the application of § 2055 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to a charitable bequest to a recognized charity, here a gift to Indiana University, after the death o

TUTTLE, Circuit Judge: This is a companion case with Florida National Bank at Lakeland, etc. v. United States, 443 F.2d 467 decided April 26, 5th Cir., 1971 and Miami Beach First National Bank, etc. v. United States, 443 F.2d 475 decided April 30, 5th Cir., 1971 in the sense that it deals with the allow-ability of a deduction from gro

950 F.Supp. 15 (1996) ESTATE OF Oscar T. EMMONS, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Melodie PEET, et al., Defendants. Civil No. 95-143-P. United States District Court, D. Maine. December 30, 1996. *16 Eric M. Mehnert, Hawkes & Mehnert, Augusta, ME, for Plaintiffs. Peter J. Brann, Attorney Generals Office, Augusta, ME, for Sta

738 A.2d 904 (1999) 128 Md. App. 433 William H. JACOB v. Michael W. DAVIS, et al. No. 1592, Sept. Term, 1998. Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. October 7, 1999. *906 Christopher Wheeler (Luman, Lange & Wheeler, on the brief), Washington, DC, for appellant. John S. VanderWoude (Heather S. O'C

728 F.Supp. 547 (1989) William A. DUNKLEY, III, Plaintiff, v. PEOPLES BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Defendant Third Party Plaintiff, v. Lawrence C. RUSCHKE, Third Party Defendant. Civ. No. 89-3021. United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Harrison Division. December 12, 1989. *548 *549

McCORD, Judge. These are consolidated appeals from a partial final judgment in a declaratory judgment action brought below by all of the trustees under the Last Will and Testament and Codicils thereto of Alfred I. du-Pont, with the exception of William B. Mills, who was made a party defendant since he was not in agreement with the contentions of the other trustees on the questions presented for adjudication. The Will and C

256 B.R. 445 (2000) In re Frederick W. MUELLER, Patricia N. Mueller, Debtors. No. 96-5-8962-JS. United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maryland. November 7, 2000. *446 *447 Maria Ellena Chavez-Ruark, Piper, Marbury, Rudnick & Wolfe, LLP, Baltimore, for Mark J. Friedman, Chapter 7 Trustee. Chris

203 So.2d 57 (1967) Stewart MACFARLANE, Individually and As Co-Executor of the Last Will and Testament of James Macfarlane, Deceased, James Macfarlane and Janet Macfarlane Semple, Appellants, v. The FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI, As Trustee et al., Appellees. No. 67-92. District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District. October 3, 1967. Rehearing Denied Novemb

*215OPINION. Hakron: The sole question is whether in the taxable years petitioner is taxable on all or any part of the income of the so-called alimony trust created by him for the benefit of his divorced wife, Maud L. Lucas. On his income tax returns for the taxable years petitioner did not include in gross income any part of the income of the trust. O

*215OPINION. Hakron: The sole question is whether in the taxable years petitioner is taxable on all or any part of the income of the so-called alimony trust created by him for the benefit of his divorced wife, Maud L. Lucas. On his income tax returns for the taxable years petitioner did not include in gross income any part of the income of the trust. O

Zimmers, J. This cause is before the Court upon the petition of the plaintiffs, trustees, some of whom were also the executors of the estate of John Q. Sherman, deceased, requesting this Court to construe certain provisions of the will of the testator; for a declaration of certain rights of the parties hereto; and for the direction and instruction of the trustees in certain respects. An answer has been filed by the eight children

207 A.2d 286 (1965) 99 R.I. 289 INDUSTRIAL NATIONAL BANK OF RHODE ISLAND et al., Ex'rs. v. RHODE ISLAND HOSPITAL et al. Eq. No. 3178. Supreme Court of Rhode Island. February 19, 1965. Hinckley, Allen, Salisbury & Parsons, Matthew W. Goring, Ronald C. Green, Jr., Peter C. Alegi, Providence, for complainants. Edwards & Angell, Ch

391 S.W.2d 211 (1965) Patricia Leonard HILLYARD (now Bowlin), Barbara Leonard Pipher, and Robert S. Leonard, Jr., Respondents, v. Gordon McLeish LEONARD and Arthur H. Leonard, Trustees of the George E. Leonard Land Trust, and the Leonard Land Company, a Missouri corporation, Appellants. No. 50705. Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2. May 10, 1965. Motions

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 502 The defendant Oliver G. Wallace has appealed from a judgment rendered against him in the amount of $3,184 and costs. The language of the decree from which defendant appeals is as follows: "It is ordered, adjudged and decreed that plaintiff, Nell Leone Wallace, have and recover from the defendant Oliver G. Wallace

Proskauer, J. (dissenting). On January 17, 1927, the plaintiff and defendant, both residents of Idaho, entered into a separation agreement in the city of Washington, D. C. By virtue of one of its terms the defendant gave to the plaintiff a note for $5,000, upon which the plaintiff seeks to recover in this action. The plaintiff instituted an action for divorce in a court of competent jurisdiction in Idaho and the defendant appeared

This appeal is taken from an order or judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis vacating its decree for maintenance entered on February 11, 1916, in the same suit, upon plaintiff's petition filed in said court April 30, 1915, in which she stated that she was married to defendant in September, 1887; that their home was at No. 4167 Lindell Avenue in the City of St. Louis until at or about February 5, 1913, when the defendant, without any cause, abandoned and deserted plaintiff, and

Laughlin, J.: Appellant and the plaintiff were married on the 18th of November, 1891. They lived together until 1908 and then separated and thereafter on the 29th of April, 1910, executed a formal separation agreement with the defendant Halpin as trustee. It is recited in. the separation agreement that the husband and wife were then living separate and apart and that three children had been born to them. The wife was awarded

Speak, J. The ground of complaint on the part of the plaintiff is that the conditions imposed upon her are unjust and oppressive, and that the court was without authority to require her acceptance of them as a condition to her recovery of alimony. On the other hand it is contended that the court, having the proper parties before it, and having the general power to allow alimony, had also full power to adjust all their property ri

A rehearing* having been granted in this case, the cause has been argued anew with new issues and new questions of law presented. A young married woman found herself in the desperate situation of giving birth to a child out of wedlock and instituted proceedings with the Probate Court of Franklin County pursuant to which the child was placed with a married couple within a day or two of birth with adoption in mind. The mother, within a week or two thereafter, had a change of heart in the