News Briefs
October 31, 2005
Information you need to know.
Michigan: Marriage Amendment Does Not Affect Partner Benefits
October 31, 2005
In a significant ruling that rejects the position of Michigan's attorney general, Ingham County Circuit Court Judge Joyce Draganchuk ruled on Sept. 27 in _<i>National Pride at Work, Inc. v. Granholm</i>_, No. 05-368-CZ, that the anti-gay marriage amendment Michigan voters added to their state constitution last year does not ban domestic partnership health benefits for public employees in the state.
Constitutional Thematics and the 'Peculiar' Federal Marriage Amendment
October 31, 2005
For leading proponents and opponents of legalizing same-sex marriages in the United States, the legal arguments have been fairly well exhausted. Both sides are clear about where they stand on the issue, and why. So it is rare when an attorney or legal scholar looks at the issue with a fresh angle. At a symposium in September sponsored by the J. Reuben Clark Law School at Brigham Young University and the Marriage and Family Law Research Grant, Scott Dodson provided just such a surprise. In his presentation, excerpted here, Dodson, a Washington, DC, attorney, suggests that the proposed wording of the Federal Marriage Amendment is so broad that it would have an unprecedented effect on other constitutional values, and, without taking a stand on the issue of same-sex marriage, he suggests that more limited language would pose less danger to those values. Dodson's presentation will be published in full in the <i>Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law</i> in Vol. 20, No. 2 Federal Marriage Amendment Symposium edition.
Non-Traditional Settlements and the IRS
October 31, 2005
<b><i>Part Two of a Two-Part Article</i></b>. Even the IRS appears to have some reservations about its position, particularly as such position is applied to the corporate transferee collecting payments on a shareholder note received as a capital contribution in a Section 351 transaction (or otherwise).
Adult Children of Divorce
October 31, 2005
Most professionals in our area of the law hate custody trials. We see how children are pulled apart by the inability of their parents to resolve their disputes; the pressure children face when they are put in the middle of a conflict and the pain of submitting to examinations by different experts, psychologists, lawyers and judges. Those of us who practice responsibly try to inform our clients, to the extent possible, of the risks to their children. We caution them, when we see them spinning off into their anger, or their desire for revenge, to think of their children. We advise them to hire therapists for children who are having trouble. We tell them to encourage their children to attend school-run groups for children whose parents are divorcing.
Divorce and the Assignment of Income Doctrine
October 31, 2005
One who is entitled to receive income, including interest or compensation for services, but assigns the income to another before it becomes due, will be taxed on it just as though he or she had actually received it and then paid it over to the assignee. This concept is known as the assignment of income doctrine.
Confronting Medical Error
October 31, 2005
In September of this year, a medical malpractice suit pending in Wilkes-Barre, PA, generated significant publicity as the case proceeded to trial. In that case, plaintiffs Tukishia and William Bobbett filed suit against Mercy Hospital and several physicians following the death of their 4-year-old son in the hospital's emergency room. The child, Torajee Bobbett, died after spending more than 9 hours at the hospital on July 19, 2001 into July 20, 2001, without obtaining proper treatment, according to documents filed in the court record. Several aspects of plaintiffs' claim related to alleged deficiencies with the Emergency Department's policies, procedures and staffing at the time Torajee was treated.
Why CA's Anti-SLAPP Statute Should Apply to Peer Review
October 31, 2005
California law protects defendants from lawsuits designed to thwart "a person's right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue." The "anti-SLAPP" (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute provides this protection by permitting the defendant to move to strike the plaintiff's complaint at the outset of litigation unless the plaintiff can demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of the claim. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc., ' 425.16, subd. (e)).
Verdicts
October 31, 2005
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
