Unreimbursed heft Loss
Schroerlucke vs. U.S., 2011 WL 4440599 (Fed. Cl.)

Facts

Mr. And Mrs. Schroerlucke claim they were due a tax refund for unreimbursed losses for 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2002. Mr. Schroerlucke had worked for World Com until he terminated employment on January 4, 1999 and had accumulated stock options. He had exercised all options and retained full ownership and had all rights in decisions pertaining to the stock. he last of the stock was sold on May 1, 2002, May 24, 2002, and September 12, 2002, in which he received some cash from the sales.

On April 11, 2003, Mr. And Mrs. Schroerlucke filed their 2002-1040 tax return with a long-term capital loss of $6,741,358 and received a maximum of $3,000 deduction. On April 7, 2006, Mr. And Mrs. Schroerlucke filed a 2002 1040X to claim the losses as a theft loss under provisions 26 U.S.C. 165 (2006), claiming an additional….

Hypothetical Situation
Case Facts: Darryl is a 20-year-old man who has consensual sexual intercourse with Victoria, a 15-year-old girl. Darryl usually likes his sex to be very physical or rough in nature. Although she is uncomfortable with this, Victoria goes along because she would be embarrassed if Darryl thought she was inexperienced. Unbeknownst to either of them, Victoria is pregnant at the time that she and Darryl have intercourse. Due to the rough nature of their actions, Victoria miscarried resulting in the death of the unborn child.

The first issue presented in this case is whether the Darryl committed statutory rape since Victoria was a minor at the time of the incident. The second legal issue in this case is whether Darryl committed feticide, which is an act that contributes to the death of an unborn fetus, though he did not know about the pregnancy when having intercourse with Victoria.

ule: Sexual….

Dennis L. Hayden and Sharon E. Hayden vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CA-7), U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, 99-2520, 2//2000, 204 F3d 772.
FACTS

Plaintiffs, Dennis and Sharon Hayden, married, were sole partners of the proprietorship called "Leddos Frozen Yogurt, LLC." In 994, Leddos purchased equipment for $26,650 and on the tax return for 994 tax year reported an income loss of $2,224, with total deduction for $3,294 and a loss of $5,78, Under section 79, on the Depreciation and Amortization form, Leddos reported the expense of $7,500 as deduction of the $26,650 invested in equipment. The Haydens reported this figure as a flow through to their 994 federal income tax return.

During that same period, Dennis Hayden operated an accounting business as sole owner (Hayden & Associates, CPAs). Dennis Hayden paid the Hayden's 993 income tax liability of $9,284 from the bank account of his accounting firm under the portion that….

Indianapolis vs. Edmond
531 U.S. 32, 121S. ct.447, 148 L. Ed. 2D 333(2000)

Facts: In an attempt to discover and intercept unlawful narcotics on transit across the city, Indianapolis police implemented a highway checkpoint program, where motorists would be stopped at designated checkpoints, and their vehicles searched for narcotics. The checks lasted no more than five minutes and involved both an open-view examination, and a sniffer dog program. Two motorists, one of them James Edmond, brought suit against the state on grounds that the checkpoint program violated the search and seizure provisions of both the Indiana Constitution and the Fourth Amendment (Carmen, 2013).

Is a highway checkpoint program whose primary goal is the discovery and interception of unlawful drugs consistent with the provisions of the Fourth Amendment?

Holding: No; a vehicle examination at a highway checkpoint constitutes an unlawful search, particularly if the purpose of the same is indistinguishable from the overall interest in….

When facts can be so easily distorted by trusted figures broadcasting on stations or channels that ostensibly report the news, however, and when enormous fortunes are made by political parties and media entities themselves through the work (i.e. The continued fact-distorting and rhetoric chanting) of these media figures there is a compelling public interest in restoring rationality to public knowledge and discourse. What form this interest should take in practical terms is a matter for much discussion and debate in and of itself, but both parties should be prevented from paying "volunteers" to turn out at events and disrupt others' attempts to gain access to their elected representatives and public officials, and financial ties between for-profit media entities and political parties should perhaps be more closely scrutinized.
The root problem at the heart of the town hall meeting disruptions, however, and in fact the root problem at the heart of….

Mapp v. Ohio
Facts: suspicious that the petitioner (Dollree Mapp) was hiding a bombing suspect and some paraphernalia that that may have been used to carry out a bombing in the state, Cleveland police went to her residence demanding to be allowed to conduct a search in regard to the same. The petitioner, after consulting with her attorney, refused to let them in because they did not have a warrant to that effect. The officers left, but returned several hours later holding up a sheet of paper that they claimed was a search warrant. They forcibly made their way into the house, conducted a thorough search, and seized a trunk containing obscene materials in the basement. They then charged the defendant for the possession of obscene materials in violation of state law. The defendant filed an appeal on grounds that the search conducted by police in her boardinghouse violated the provisions….

It is merely a separate agreement between the assignor and assignee in which the assignor gives its rights under the contract to the assignee for good and valuable consideration. Since an assignment is not a modification to the original agreement, it does not need to be in writing and signed by the parties to the original agreement. However, if the terms of the original agreement are altered by the assignment, such as if Kethan's terms of employment changed (different salary, different working hours, different responsibilities) then the assignment could arguably be a modification of the original agreement. However, in this case nothing about Kethan's work environment changes.
Further, the court determined that due to Kentucky public policy and case precedent, noncompetition agreements are assignable because Kentucky public policy favors enforcement of noncompetition agreeements as long as they are reasonable. This policy is designed to protect businesses from unscrupulous employees who….

391).
Padilla's counsel subsequently filed a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, which was again denied in April of 2006. Meantime, Padilla had been transferred to civilian custody, essentially rendering the petition for a writ of certiorari in the highest court in the land a moot point.

The question before the Court of Appeals was whether the President of the United States had the constitutional authority to detain a United States citizen who was allegedly associated with al Qaeda, a known terrorist organization that the United States was at war with.

The Judge who ultimately penned the Court of Appeals' opinion, Luttig, was joined by Judges Michael and Traxler (2005) and wrote:

The detention of petitioner being fully authorized by Act of Congress, the judgment of the district court that the detention of petitioner by the President of the United States is without support in law is hereby reversed. (p.397).

In essence,….

K. Comment: I agree with the majority opinion. The Constitution is the absolute guiding law of the land, and the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that its protections will be extended to state actions. The Fourth Amendment guarantees a right to privacy and assures citizens that they will be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment also imposes a warrant requirement for the majority of searches, so that most searches that occur without a warrant violate the Fourth Amendment. The search in this case certainly violated the Fourth Amendment, but whether or not the constitutional violations were as egregious as in this case should not be the determinant of whether evidence is excluded, because the Constitution absolutely bans all unreasonable searches and seizures. hile the dissent suggests that other remedies can help a defendant who has been subjected to an unreasonable search and seizure, the fact is that none of….

easonable Suspicion and 4th Amendment Law in U.S. v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2001)
Title and Citation: U.S. v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2001)

Type of Action: eview by the U.S. Supreme Court of a ruling made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which held that evidence should be suppressed as a result of a violation of the Fourth Amendment right to privacy and protection from unwarranted and unreasonable search and seizure. The federal government sought to overturn the motion to suppress that was upheld by the Ninth Circuit.

Facts of the Case: On a January afternoon in 1998 Border Patrol agent Clinton Stoddard was manning a checkpoint on U.S. Highway 191, located north of Douglas, Arizona. At approximately 2:15 P.M. A motion sensor was tripped and Stoddard was notified that a vehicle was traversing an infrequently travelled road -- evidence used by Border Patrol agents to detect possible….

4Giles v. CommonwealthCite as 672 S.E. 2d 879 (Va. 2009)Facts of CaseDefendant, Christopher Lee Giles, took part in breaking and entering a house on September 28, 2005, in the City of Martinsville. The house belonged to Oscar Thornton, which was an inheritance from his deceased mother three months before. While Mr. Thornton has his primary home in Maryland, he treated the house he inherited from his mother as a vacation home. Since inheriting it, Mr. Thornton has visited the home twice a month. Prior to the break-in, Mr. Thornton had stayed a whole weekend in the house ten days before. Mr. Thorntons vacation home was a fully-furnished residence with fully-stocked food and sleeping quarters. During the break-in, Giles took food, sheets, towels, a videocassette recorder, two TV screens, and bathroom supplies.While Giles involvement in the break-in is not in dispute, he moved to strike arguing that the Commonwealth failed to….

Gault
Caption: In re Gault et al., 387 U.S. 1; 87 S. Ct. 1428; 18 L. Ed. 2D 527; 1967 U.S. LEXIS 1478; 40 Ohio Op. 2D 378.

Facts: After allegedly making obscene phone calls to a neighbor, the appellants' son, a fifteen-year-old boy, was taken into custody by the Gila County sheriff. The detention occurred without notice to the parents. The boy was questioned without being advised of his right to silence and without his parents present. At no time were the boy or his parents advised that the boy had the right to counsel. When the mother went to the juvenile facility where her son was being detained, she was advised that he was being held because of obscene phone calls and that a hearing would occur the next day. At the hearing in the Juvenile Court, a petition was filed stating that the boy was a delinquent minor.….

United States of America, Plaintiff -- Appellee,
Ann W. McRee, Joseph H. Hale, Defendants -- Appellee.

United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

Parties: United States of America (Plaintiff) v. McRee & Hale (Defendants)

Facts:

On February 28, 1985 the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued a jeopardy assessment in the amount of $1.9 million which would impact Hale's property and businesses. He was in prison at the time for securities fraud and perjury, and his affairs were being handled by Ann McRee and Paul Wagner. On April 15, 1985, the IRS sent Hale a Denial of Appeal of Jeopardy Assessment with right to appeal, which they did not take advantage of. The IRS accidentally sent Hale a refund check in the amount of $359,380.25 because of a computer error which should have stated that they took $340,000 as partial payment of the amount owed. Hale did everything in his power to convert that money to cash….

Case Brief:

In this particular case, Mrs. Gregory, who is in this context the taxpayer, was keen on avoiding double taxation. As the owner of the stocks of United Mortgage Corp., an entity that held some stocks at Monitor Securities Corp, she desired to sell Monitor Securities Corp's securities for a significant profit. However, there was a problem. If done as it should have been done, taxation would occur at two levels, i.e. after the sale of Monitor Securities Corp's stocks and again during the distribution of sale profit, as dividend tax. There was a way around this. To minimize her tax obligation, Mrs. Gregory formed a new entity which then issued its shares to her after they were transferred from United Mortgage Corp to the said entity. Next, she dissolved the new company thus causing Monitor Securities Corp's securities to be accorded to her as liquidating dividend -- with the….

Parties:
United States of America (plaintiff) v. amzi Ahmed Yousef, Eyad Ismoil and Abdul Hakim Murad (defendants)

Facts:

amzi Yousef, Eyad Ismoil also known as Eyad Ismail, and Abdul Hakim Murad also known as Saeed Ahmed were charged by the United States in a federal district court for conspiring to bomb twelve American commercial airlines in Southeast Asia. Following his entry in Manila, Philippines in 1994, Yousef developed a plan for the attack which incorporated five people placing bombs aboard the aircraft and exiting them at their first layoff. Together with other people, Yousef tested the plan on two incidents by placing smaller bombs in other aircrafts. This plan was discovered when the three accidentally started a fire when burning chemicals in the Manila apartment. The area police arrived at the scene and found plans to carry out the attacks on Yousef's computer as well as components for developing a bomb. Yousef, Ismoil,….