DEATH TAXES ON COMPLETED TRANSFERS INTER VIVOS

The subjection of transfers inter vivas to the death tax under each of the above categories has been based upon the proposition that, for a transfer inter vivas properly to be subject to the death tax, it must bear some reasonable relationship to transfers at death either by will or under the law relating to intestacy. This rule has been applied both in problems of statutory construction and in problems of constitutionality. The recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Helvering v. Bullard seems to have abandoned this test for the inclusion of transfers inter vivas within the scope of the death tax, so far as the federal death tax is concerned. It is the purpose here to study the present status of the law relating to death taxes upon transfers inter vivas, with particular reference to the taxation of such transfers complete when made, as upheld by this Supreme Court decision

Discretion to Follow the Law: The Collision of Ohio\u27s Nursing Home Bill of Rights with Ohio\u27s Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act

The Ohio Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act confers general immunity on political subdivisions. Therefore, government owned homes seek to avoid liability by raising the defenses provided by the Ohio Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act, despite the resident\u27s rights under the Nursing Home Bill of Rights. The result is that residents of government owned nursing homes have inferior remedies for the tortious acts of a county home\u27s employees. The disparate treatment meted out to residents of county owned homes opens the Political Subdivision Act to another challenge: equal protection. The law formerly recognized that government actors taking part in the marketplace like any other participant were liable in the same manner, and to the same extent as any other participant. Under Cramer, while residents of non-county owned homes can sue for ordinary negligence, county owned homes can be found immune for the same conduct. There is no justification for this disparate treatment

Admissibility of Non-U.S. Electronic Evidence

After two long years collecting hundreds of gigabytes of e-mail, data base reports, and social media posts from countries in Europe, Asia, and South America, such as France, South Korea, Argentina, Canada, Australia, and El Salvador, the day of trial has arrived. The trial team has obtained the data at great cost, in dollars as well as person-hours, but is finally ready for trial. First-chair counsel, second-chair counsel, and four paralegals file into the courtroom, not with bankers boxes full of documents as in earlier times, but with laptops, tablet computers, and a data projector. Following opening statements, the first witness takes the stand. After a few questions about the existence of e-mails written by executives of the defendant multinational corporation, a paralegal moves to the projector, as she rehearsed many times, to flip on the switch that will project the e-mails for the jury. She hears, “Objection!” followed immediately by, “Sustained.” Counsel asks for a sidebar. Instead, the judge asks the court officer to take the jury out. She then notes that these e-mails, the production of which she had ruled upon previously, were created outside the U.S. Who will testify to their authenticity? What was the chain of custody—were they altered in some fashion in the office or between the client’s servers and counsel’s laptop? How, exactly, do the e-mails fit into an exception to the hearsay rule? Business records? What is the “business” of this foreign facility that requires the use of e-mail on a regular basis? Counsel asks for a continuance to respond to those questions. “Denied!” the judge says

Discretion to Follow the Law: The Collision of Ohio\u27s Nursing Home Bill of Rights with Ohio\u27s Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act

The Ohio Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act confers general immunity on political subdivisions. Therefore, government owned homes seek to avoid liability by raising the defenses provided by the Ohio Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act, despite the resident\u27s rights under the Nursing Home Bill of Rights. The result is that residents of government owned nursing homes have inferior remedies for the tortious acts of a county home\u27s employees. The disparate treatment meted out to residents of county owned homes opens the Political Subdivision Act to another challenge: equal protection. The law formerly recognized that government actors taking part in the marketplace like any other participant were liable in the same manner, and to the same extent as any other participant. Under Cramer, while residents of non-county owned homes can sue for ordinary negligence, county owned homes can be found immune for the same conduct. There is no justification for this disparate treatment

THE MEANING OF HEIRS IN WILLSA SUGGESTION IN LEGAL METHOD

A major task of the lawyer is the prediction of judicial action. No less than a quarter of a century ago Justice Holmes referred to the law as a body of systematized prediction. Today legal scholars are not content to base their predictions solely upon the body of rules announced in judicial opinions. By means of elaborate fact studies they have sought to ascertain how rules of law actually function in society. Not only have these studies dealt with problems of procedure and the administration of courts, they have also invaded the fields of commercial and property law. Among such studies may be named those of Moore and Sussman in banking practices, those of Powell and Looker in decedents\u27 estates, and those of Douglas in bankruptcy

The Micro Determination of Tissue Lipids

Author Institution: From the Department of Physiological Chemistry and of Anatomy, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohi