Simmons v. Simmons

Last updated
Simmons v. Simmons
Court Connecticut Supreme Court
Full case nameDuncan R. Simmons v. Aura R. Simmons
DecidedMarch 24, 1998 (1998-03-24)
Citation(s) 708 A.2d 949 ; 244 Conn. 158
Court membership
Judges sitting Robert J. Callahan, Robert I. Berdon, Flemming L. Norcott Jr., Joette Katz, Francis M. McDonald Jr.
Case opinions
Decision byCallahan
ConcurrenceBerdon, Norcott, Katz, McDonald
Keywords

Simmons v. Simmons, 708 A.2d 949 (1998), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of Connecticut that held that a medical degree is not a property interest subject to division during a divorce proceeding under a marital property regime. [1]

Contents

Decision

The plaintiff sought to acquire half of the expected value of her husband's medical degree during divorce proceedings. The plaintiff provided testimony about the earnings potential associated with a medical degree and sought half of the expected earnings associated with the degree. The court ruled that the medical degree was not a property interest subject to division, but rather simply an expectancy that may not even vest. [2]

Related Research Articles

Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate and/or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by failing to act as a form of carelessness possibly with extenuating circumstances. The core concept of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care in their actions, by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people or property.

Personality rights, sometimes referred to as the right of publicity, are rights for an individual to control the commercial use of one's identity, such as name, image, likeness, or other unequivocal identifiers. They are generally considered as property rights, rather than personal rights, and so the validity of personality rights of publicity may survive the death of the individual to varying degrees, depending on the jurisdiction.

Palimony is the division of financial assets and real property on the termination of a personal live-in relationship wherein the parties are not legally married. The term palimony is currently not codified as a legal term, but rather it remains as a colloquial portmanteau of the words partner and alimony. Nevertheless, numerous "secondary" legal sources refer to the term, and attempt to describe its influence and implications upon actual statute law.

Garnishment is a legal process for collecting a monetary judgment on behalf of a plaintiff from a defendant. Garnishment allows the plaintiff to take the money or property of the debtor from the person or institution that holds that property. A similar legal mechanism called execution allows the seizure of money or property held directly by the debtor.

A legal case is in a general sense a dispute between opposing parties which may be resolved by a court, or by some equivalent legal process. A legal case is typically based on either civil or criminal law. In most legal cases there are one or more accusers and one or more defendants. In some instances, a legal case may occur between parties that are not in opposition, but require a legal ruling to formally establish some legal fact, such as a divorce.

Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (1977), is a United States corporate law case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established that a defendant's ownership of stock in a corporation incorporated within a state, without more, is insufficient to allow that state courts to exercise jurisdiction over the defendant. The case set forth a framework for evaluating when a defendant will be deemed to have minimum contacts with the forum state sufficient for the exercise of jurisdiction to be consistent with due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Federal Election Commission v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998), was a United States Supreme Court case deciding that an individual could sue for a violation of a federal law pursuant to a statute enacted by the U.S. Congress which created a general right to access certain information.

International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918), also known as INS v. AP or simply the INS case, is a 1918 decision of the United States Supreme Court that enunciated the misappropriation doctrine of federal intellectual property common law—that a "quasi-property right" may be created against others by one's investment of effort and money in an intangible thing, such as information or a design. The doctrine is highly controversial and criticized by many legal scholars, but it has its supporters.

A partition is a term used in the law of real property to describe an act, by a court order or otherwise, to divide up a concurrent estate into separate portions representing the proportionate interests of the owners of property. It is sometimes described as a forced sale. Under the common law, any owner of property who owns an undivided concurrent interest in land can seek such a division. In some cases, the parties agree to a specific division of the land; if they are unable to do so, the court will determine an appropriate division. A sole owner, or several owners, of a piece of land may partition their land by entering a deed poll.

Constructive trust

A constructive trust is an equitable remedy imposed by a court to benefit a party that has been wrongfully deprived of its rights due to either a person obtaining or holding a legal property right which they should not possess due to unjust enrichment or interference, or due to a breach of fiduciary duty, which is intercausative with unjust enrichment and/or property interference. It is a type of implied trust.

Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when one person intentionally damages someone else's contractual or business relationships with a third party, causing economic harm. As an example, someone could use blackmail to induce a contractor into breaking a contract; they could threaten a supplier to prevent them from supplying goods or services to another party; or they could obstruct someone's ability to honor a contract with a client by deliberately refusing to deliver necessary goods.

Attorney's fee is a chiefly United States term for compensation for legal services performed by an attorney for a client, in or out of court. It may be an hourly, flat-rate or contingent fee. Recent studies suggest that when lawyers charge a flat-fee rather than billing by the hour, they work less hard on behalf of clients and clients get worse outcomes. Attorney fees are separate from fines, compensatory and punitive damages, and from court costs in a legal case. Under the "American rule", attorney fees are usually not paid by the losing party to the winning party in a case, except pursuant to specific statutory or contractual rights.

Dennis G. Jacobs is a Senior United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. He previously served as Chief Judge of the Second Circuit from October 1, 2006 to August 31, 2013.

Hodel v. Irving, 481 U.S. 704 (1987), is a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that a statute ordering the escheat of fractional interests in real property which had been bequeathed to members of the Oglala Sioux tribe was an unconstitutional taking which required just compensation.

Edwards v. Habib, 397 F.2d 687, was a case decided by the D.C. Circuit that includes the first recognition of retaliatory eviction as a defense to eviction in landlord-tenant law.

Davidson Bros., Inc. v. D. Katz & Sons, Inc., 643 A.2d 642, was a case decided by the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey that first applied public policy considerations instead of the touch and concern doctrine when deciding the validity of a restrictive covenant.

<i>Cline v. American Aggregates Corp.</i>

Cline v. American Aggregates Corporation, 474 N.E.2d 324, was a case decided by the Supreme Court of Ohio that first applied the reasonable use doctrine to water use in that state.

Patricia Herzog, born Patricia Reid Chamberlain, was a lawyer in the landmark Sullivan case which prompted the legislature of California to amend its marital property law to take into consideration expenses made for the support of spouses.

Eggshell skull Legal principle

The eggshell rule is a well-established legal doctrine in common law, used in some tort law systems, with a similar doctrine applicable to criminal law. The rule states that, in a tort case, the unexpected frailty of the injured person is not a valid defense to the seriousness of any injury caused to them.

<i>Blumenthal v. Trump</i> Lawsuit between members of Congress and Donald Trump concerning emoluments

Blumenthal v. Trump, 949 F.3d 14, was a U.S. constitutional law and federal civil procedure lawsuit heard by Circuit Judges Henderson, Tatel, and Griffith, of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The case was on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, where District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan granted in part and denied in part the President's motion to dismiss for lack of standing, denied the President's motion to dismiss for failure to state claim, and certified interlocutory appeal.

References

  1. Casner, A.J. et al. Cases and Text on Property, Fifth Edition. Aspen Publishers, New York, NY: 2004, p. 603
  2. Casner, pp. 567 - 603