The Ohio Supreme Court Unanimously Agrees with Maestle and Farnan that a Person’s Domicile is the Home to Which the Person Has the Intention of Returning and One’s Domicile is Never Temporary or Transient. 2014 – Ohio Supreme Court Unanimous Decision re Domicile – October
Effective July 1, 2014, the IRS introduced a short form application for 501(c)(3) tax exempt status called the Form 1023EZ. This new application is three pages long compared with the somewhat daunting 26 page regular Form 1023. Generally, an applicant with gross annual receipts of $50,000 or less and assets of $250,000 or less may […]
Inhouse counsel face ethics questions that are significantly different from outside counsel or criminal defense attorneys. For example, application of the attorneyclient privilege in the corporate context can be complicated, leading to confusion as to who the client of the corporate counsel is and when communications are or are not privileged. This is especially tricky […]
Ohio’s Constitution contains a ban on legal recognition of same sex unions. Consequently, despite a recent United States Supreme Court case permitting states to recognize same sex marriage, Ohio same gender spouses who file a joint federal tax return, may not file a joint Ohio state tax return even if they were married in a […]
In Marusa, et al. v. Erie Ins. Co., slip opinion 2013Ohio1957, decided on May 21, 2013, the Ohio Supreme Court clarified and distinguished its prior holding in Snyder v. Am. Fam. Ins. Co., 114 Ohio St.3d 239, 2007Ohio4004. . .2013 – Ohio Supreme Court Rules that an UM Claim is Not Barred Even Though Plaintiff […]
In Westfield Insurance Company v. Custom Agri Systems, Inc., 2012 Ohio 4712, decided October 16, 2012, the Ohio Supreme Court finally, after years of litigation in the Ohio lower courts, definitively answered this question certified to it by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit: (1) Are claims of defective construction/workmanship brought […]
On August 27, 2012, the Eleventh District Court of Appeals issued a unanimous decision reversing and setting aside a $574,121.32 judgment against Huntington Bank as successor in interest to Sky Bank. This matter arose from alleged damages incurred during the construction of the W. Thomas James’ Funeral Home. Maestle Persuades Court of Appeals to Reverse […]
In a 7-0 decision, the Ohio Supreme Court, in Arnott v. Arnott, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio- 3208, held that an appellate court should apply an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a trial court’s holding to the question of standing, e.g., the appropriateness of the case for declaratory judgment and should apply a de novo […]
The Ohio Supreme Court Unanimously Agrees with Maestle and Farnan that a Person’s Domicile is the Home to Which the Person Has the Intention of Returning and One’s Domicile is Never Temporary or Transient.
2014 – Ohio Supreme Court Unanimous Decision re Domicile – October
Effective July 1, 2014, the IRS introduced a short form application for 501(c)(3) tax exempt status called the Form 1023EZ. This new application is three pages long compared with the somewhat daunting 26 page regular Form 1023. Generally, an applicant with gross annual receipts of $50,000 or less and assets of $250,000 or less may use the Form 1023EZ to apply for 501(c)(3) tax exempt status. . . 2014 – Internal Revenue Service Introduces EZ Application for Tax-Exempt Status
Inhouse counsel face ethics questions that are significantly different from outside counsel or criminal defense attorneys. For example, application of the attorneyclient privilege in the corporate context can be complicated, leading to confusion as to who the client of the corporate counsel is and when communications are or are not privileged. This is especially tricky because more and more inhouse counsel are being asked to provide both legal and business advice. . . Challenges Faced by In-House Counsel Regarding Privilege
Ohio’s Constitution contains a ban on legal recognition of same sex unions. Consequently, despite a recent United States Supreme Court case permitting states to recognize same sex marriage, Ohio same gender spouses who file a joint federal tax return, may not file a joint Ohio state tax return even if they were married in a state that recognizes same gender marriage. . .2013 – Client Advisory – Ohio Department of Taxation Guidelines – Same Sex Couples – October
In Marusa, et al. v. Erie Ins. Co., slip opinion 2013Ohio1957, decided on May 21, 2013, the Ohio Supreme Court clarified and distinguished its prior holding in Snyder v. Am. Fam. Ins. Co., 114 Ohio St.3d 239, 2007Ohio4004. . .2013 – Ohio Supreme Court Rules that an UM Claim is Not Barred Even Though Plaintiff Was Not Legally Entitled to Recover Damages from Tortfeasor
In Westfield Insurance Company v. Custom Agri Systems, Inc., 2012 Ohio 4712, decided October 16, 2012, the Ohio Supreme Court finally, after years of litigation in the Ohio lower courts, definitively answered this question certified to it by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit:
(1) Are claims of defective construction/workmanship brought by a property owner claims for “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under a commercial general liability policy? . . . 2012 – Ohio Supreme Court Rules that Claims for Defective Construction Work or Workmanship are not Claims for Property Damage Caused by an Occurence Under a CGL Policy
On August 27, 2012, the Eleventh District Court of Appeals issued a unanimous decision reversing and setting aside a $574,121.32 judgment against Huntington Bank as successor in interest to Sky Bank. This matter arose from alleged damages incurred during the construction of the W. Thomas James’ Funeral Home.
Maestle Persuades Court of Appeals to Reverse Half Million Dollar Judgment
In a 7-0 decision, the Ohio Supreme Court, in Arnott v. Arnott, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio- 3208, held that an appellate court should apply an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a trial court’s holding to the question of standing, e.g., the appropriateness of the case for declaratory judgment and should apply a de novo standard when reviewing a trial court’s determination of legal issues in the case. In a de novo standard of review, an appellate court considers the issue, as if for the first time, without deference to the lower court’s decision. . . 2012 – Ohio Supreme Court Clarifies Appellate Court Standard of Review for a Declaratory Judgment Matter
