In the case of Stadnyk vs. Commissioner, Mrs. Stadnyk bought a car from Nicholasville Auto and the car broke down on the way home from the dealership. Due to the car breaking down, she called her bank to cancel the payment order on her check due to a dissatisfied purchase. Her bank incorrectly stamped the check as insufficient funds and returned the check to Nicholasville Auto. The auto dealer proceeded to file a criminal complaint against Mrs. Stadnyk for paying with a worthless check in the amount of $1,100. Mrs. Stadnyk was then arrested at her home and taken into custody where she was detained for approximately eight hours until she posted bail. She did not suffer any physical injury from the event but she did see a psychologist for emotional suffering. Mrs. Stadnyk filed a lawsuit against the owner of the auto dealer and the bank that stamped her check incorrectly. Eventually, Mrs. Stadnyk agreed …show more content…
Mrs. Stadnyk did not report the $49,000 on her tax return. The Internal Revenue Service later found her liable for a tax deficiency since she did not report this income. Section 61(a) states that unless otherwise specifically provided, gross income includes all income from whatever source derived. IRC § 61(a). Section 104(a)(2) states that gross income does not include the amount of any damages received on account of personal physical injuries or physical sickness. IRC § 104(a)(2). The tax court held that since the income is not excluded under section 104(a)(2) Mrs. Stadnyk is liable for the tax deficiency and the accuracy related penalty. Stadnyk v. Commissioner 96 T.C.M. 475, (Dec. 22, 2008). Stadnyk appealed the tax court’s ruling and the 6th Circuit of Appeals Court affirmed. This has case has been cited four times as either favorably or without comment. Since Marlene did not obtain any physical injuries the income from her settlement doesn’t qualify for the section 104(a)(2) exclusion, thus she must report the $100,000 as ordinary income
Legal Case Brief: Bland v. Roberts (4th Cir. 2013). Olivia Johnson JOUR/SPCH 3060 April 1, 2014. Bland v. Roberts, No. 12-1671, Order & Opinion (4th Cir., Sept. 18, 2013), available at:http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121671.pdf (last visited Apr. 4, 2014). Nature of the Case: First Amendment lawsuit on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News, seeking compensation for lost front/back pay or reinstatement of former positions. Facts: Sheriff B.J. Roberts ran for reelection against opponent, Jim Adams, in 2009.
On January 27, 1964, the court released her upon recommendation of two doctors appointed by the probate court to examine her. She filed law suits for false imprisonment, assault and battery and malpractice against Wolodzko, Anthony Smyk and Ardmore Acres. The court dismissed case on Smyk and Ardmore (115, 497, & 924, 1969) and (Swainson, n.d.).
There is no dispute that Mr.Nanokeesic showed an attempt to prevent the police from finding the weapon, when he ran from the police and discarded his backpack. The backpack was found by the police and searched, without a warrant.
In a second case that happened in South Braintree, a shoe company had two employees transporting payroll boxes containing about $15,777. They weren’t ready and their boss encouraged them to walk the short distance. Then they were robbed when a couple of bandits shot and killed both men and stole the money and drove away in a buick car. The first evidence is the judge and jury ignored the physical evidence that both men weren’t in the area when the crime happened, and their guns were not the same caliber; there was a.38 while the gun reported was a.32.
McLaughlin v. Heikkila is a case that involves Wilbert Heikklia and David Mc Laughlin who entered into an agreement involving eight parcels to be sold to Mr. Mc Laughlin by Mr. Heikklia. According to Cheeseman (2013), the facts of the case indicate that Mr. Mc Laughlin submitted offers to Mr. Heikklia for the purchase of three parcels and afterwards, McLaughlin submitted earnest-money checks and three printed purchase agreements to Heikklia. According to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, McLaughlin himself never signed any of the agreements. However, his wife did sign two of the agreements and she initiated the third agreement on September 14, 2003. Then, two days later on September 16, 2003 Heikklia made changes to two of the agreements by increasing the cost of the parcels, and he changed the closing dates on all three agreements, including add a reservation of mineral rights to all three (Minnesota Court of Appeals, 2005).
Fraud is one of Canada's most severe acts of financial criminality as the economic impact of this crime could potentially handicap an entire society. According to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre Annual Statistic Report (CAFC), a report established to monitor fraud with the aid of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), and Competition Bureau of Canada, it reported an annual loss of 74 million dollars affecting over 14,472 victims (Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre, 2014). Given this alarming statistic, it is worrisome that we as a society still ignore or turn a blind eye towards those who commit fraud as seen in the low conviction (Canada Revenue Agency, 2014), and focus our efforts on petty thefts as seen with the high rate of convictions
Her little boy wasn't expected to make it through the night, the voice on the line said (“Determined to be heard”). Joshua Deshaney had been hospitalized in a life threatening coma after being brutally beat up by his father, Randy Deshaney. Randy had a history of abuse to his son prior to this event and had been working with the Department of Social Services to keep custody over his son. The court case was filed by Joshua's mother, Melody Deshaney, who was suing the DSS employees on behalf of failing to protect her son from his father. To understand the Deshaney v. Winnebago County Court case and the Supreme courts ruling, it's important to analyze the background, the court's decision, and how this case has impacted our society.
Separate but equal, judicial review, and the Miranda Rights are decisions made by the Supreme Court that have impacted the United States in history altering ways. Another notable decision was made in the Tinker v. Des Moines Case. Ultimately the Supreme Court decided that the students in the case should have their rights protected and that the school acted unconstitutionally. Justice Fortas delivered a compelling majority opinion. In the case of Tinker v Des Moines, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion was strongly supported with great reasoning but had weaknesses that could present future problems.
The Schenck court case of 1919 developed out of opposition to U.S. involvement in World War I (1914-1918). Antiwar sentiment in the United States was particularly strong among socialists, German Americans, and religious groups that traditionally supported antiviolence. In response to this outlook, Congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917. This law provided heavy fines and jail terms for interfering with U.S. military operations or for causing or attempting to cause insubordination or disloyalty in the military. In addition, the act made it illegal to obstruct recruitment efforts of the U.S. armed forces.
The Schenck case in the early 1900s dealt with the freedom of speech as it related to the draft of World War I. Charles Schenck sent mass mail that stated “the draft was a monstrous wrong motivated by the capitalist system” (Schenck v. United States). The federal government found this to be in violation of the Clear and Present Danger Test as well as the Espionage Act and arrested Schenck for his actions. The case proceeded to the Supreme Court and was ruled in favor of the United States unanimously. The opinion of the court violates the free speech clause as well as a right to have peaceful protest by denying Schenck to share his opinions of the draft with others despite the opinion of the government on this action. Due to these violations the ruling on the Schneck v. United States case should be overturned in order to protect the right of free speech and protest to all citizens.
In 1917, a man by the name of Charles T. Schenck was arrested for violating the Espionage Act. The Espionage Act makes it illegal to, during wartime, “willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies [or] willfully cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or of the United States.” Schenck was the General Secretary of the United States Socialist Party. The party opposed the military draft and distributed flyers urging drafted men to petition against their military duty. Schenck was sentenced to serve 10 years in prison.
Do you know that notifying your fellow Americans of their constitutional rights was a Federal crime? Well it was during World War One (WWI). In the case Schenck v. the United States, schenck tried to remind his fellow Americans of their constitutional rights and also let them know that the draft was being used as a form of militarized slavery. This case contained men who his right was taken away after he tried to get the military draftees to fight against the draft. However Congress took his right of speech away when it was arrested and convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917. This was the time the WWI one had broken out, the government need men to fight. They were short staffed for that to work and they need man to fight this war so the military started selecting citizen randomly to draft. Schenck fought against this draft saying this in a way it was like slavery.
Dred Scott, an African American man who was born into slavery, wanted what all slaves would have wanted, their freedom. They were mistreated, neglected, and treated not as humans, but as property. In 1852, Dred Scott sued his current owner, Sanford, about him, no longer being a slave, but a free man (Oyez 1). In Article four of the Constitution, it states that any slave, who set foot in a free land, makes them a free man. This controversy led to the ruling of the state courts and in the end, came to the final word of the Supreme Court. Is he a slave or a free man?
In R v Sheu, the leave to appeal made by applicant, Simon Sheu for the sentence imposed upon him in the District Court on 16th of September 2016 was refused at the 2nd of May 2018 hearing. The applicant was previously sentenced by Williams in the District Court for two counts of break, enter and steal (s 112(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)), three counts of aggravated break, enter and steal (s 112(2)) and once for taking part in a criminal group (s 93T(1)). The sole ground of the proposed appeal made to the Court of Criminal Appeal was that the applicant seeks leave because he has
The last case I watched before I had to go was of Jeffery Lynn Combs, case number S61248; he had 18 felony counts of forgery and theft. The court considers him a career criminal with a 20 page criminal record rap sheet. In this case he was writing checks in his deceased mother’s name in excess of over 10 thousand dollars. With all the evidence of the checks stacking up against him he decided accepted the guilty plea. Even with his legal team of Amy Hinkle and Stephen M. Wallace he was destined to have an extended sentence. He was sentenced to 6 years to 12 years, spending a minimum of 45% of the time in jail. The court is forcing him to pay restitution or compensation to the state of over $10,000. His arraignment is set for June 6th.