Caveat: Computers and their search engines are not a substitute for human intelligence. When a term is found through a search engine that is when your understanding has to begin. In general, the facts of the case should be centered on either common law or sales contracts. For example, if duress is the search term, duress in the sale of real property is appropriate but duress in creating a will is not on the assignment. As a general rule, do not use criminal cases as this is a course in civil law (private injury actions).
The format should be of the students choosing but should include the following:
1) term chosen,
2) date of decision,
4) procedural history of the case (starting with the trial court’s decision and all appeals),
5) legal issue (question of law for the court decide - not asking who will win),
6) decision and the court’s reasoning.
7) student’s personal analysis
8) copy of the Shepardizing summary
The paper should conclude with the student’s own analysis of the case that includes a comparison to other cases read during the semester on that same topic. The analysis should include agreement or disagreement with the decision along with substantive reasons for that conclusion, and any ethical questions that arise.
The presentation should be in your own words. Do not quote from the case. This is not a typical research paper. Cutting and pasting is a violation of the Academic Integrity Policy.
The paper must be typed (double-spaced), proof read and use proper grammar and spelling. Please use full sentences. It should be a maximum of 3-4 pages.
This material may consist of step-by-step explanations on how to solve a problem or examples of proper writing, including the use of citations, references, bibliographies, and formatting. This material is made available for the sole purpose of studying and learning - misuse is strictly forbidden.Term researched: partnership, limited liability partnership, gross income, limited liability company, federal tax purposes, partnership income, tax purposes, real estate investment, assessments, partnership entity, ownership, Taxation, losses, business decisions, etc.
Citation Name: Michael & Helen Kaplan (plaintiff, respondent) v. Dir., Div. of Taxation (defendant, appellant), Morris & Sandra Lisman-Kaplan (plaintiff, respondent) v. Dir., Div. of Taxation (defendant, appellant)
Legal Citation: Kaplan v. Dir., Div. of Taxation, 23 N.J. Tax 594 (2008)
Date Decided: January 08, 2008
Legal History: Helen Kaplan and Sandra Lisman-Kaplan are plaintiffs in these matters, because they are respectively the wives of Michael Kaplan and Morris Kaplan. Michael Kaplan and Morris Kaplan, who are brothers, were the principals of the entities of 75 to100 partnerships and limited liability companies that have interest in numerous residential and commercial incomes in producing properties.
The plaintiffs, Michael & Helen Kaplan (plaintiff, respondent) and Morris & Sandra Lisman-Kaplan (plaintiff, respondent) are New Jersey residents. Among the plaintiffs partnership interests was a one-third interest (one-sixth owned by each plaintiff) in an entity known as Brunswick Manor Associates, which owned by property in North Brunswick, New Jersey....