ease bar in Puerto Rico

1972This assignment relies on the doctrine of the ease of United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967).

1954Since the decision in the ease at bar was based upon a motion for summary judgment and appellant offered no evidence, with the exception of certain judicial records which are irrelevant, the only fact proved is that the statute in question affects him (a) because appellant is the owner of certain property wherein his homestead is constituted, and (b) because, despite the fact that he complies with other legal requirements, his property is not covered by the exemption because the total assessed value of his properties exceeds $2,500, or, in other words, that the property in question is subject

1954Since the decision in the ease at bar was based upon a motion for summary judgment and appellant offered no evidence, with the exception of certain judicial records which are irrelevant, the only fact proved is that the statute in question affects him (a) because appellant is the owner of certain property wherein his homestead is constituted, and (b) because, despite the fact that he complies with other legal requirements, his property is not covered by the exemption because the total assessed value of his properties exceeds $2,500, or, in other words, that the property in question is subject

1954In Roberts v. Hosking, 28 P. 2d 199 , the Montana statute defines the term “public accountant” as one who offers his services to the general public.

1952Porter v. Woodard, supra, is not applicable to the ease at bar.

1948Co. v. Kansas, supra, 284; Myers v. United States, 272 U. S. 52, 119, 136 ; and State v. South Norwalk, 77 Conn. 257, 264 , in which the court said that a practice of at least twenty years duration ‘on the part of the executive department, acquiesced in by the legislative department, while not absolutely binding on the judicial department, is entitled to great regard in determining the true construction of a constitutional provision the phraseology of which is in any respect of doubtful meaning.’ ” (Italics ours.) In the ease at bar it was proved that the only established practice was that the

1946In Robertson v. Mississippi Packing Co., 98 So. 539, 540 , wherein the facts were similar to the ease at bar and was decided on a statute similar to ours, 4 the court reached the conclusion that the exemption was transferable.

1946In Bigby v. Pelican Bay Lumber Co., 173 Ore. 682 , 147 P. (2d) 199 , Atchison v. May, 201 La. 1003 , 10 So. (2d) 785 , and Treat v. Los Angeles Gas & Electric Corporation, 82 Cal. App. 610 , 256 Pac. 447 , cited by the lower court in its extensive and well-reasoned opinion, it was held, construing workmen’s compensation acts similar to ours, that in establishing the exclusiveness of the remedy provided by said acts, the Lcgis- lature liad intended to totally deprive' the persons who are not dependent on the deceased workman of their right to compensation.

1946In Bigby v. Pelican Bay Lumber Co., 173 Ore. 682 , 147 P. (2d) 199 , Atchison v. May, 201 La. 1003 , 10 So. (2d) 785 , and Treat v. Los Angeles Gas & Electric Corporation, 82 Cal. App. 610 , 256 Pac. 447 , cited by the lower court in its extensive and well-reasoned opinion, it was held, construing workmen’s compensation acts similar to ours, that in establishing the exclusiveness of the remedy provided by said acts, the Lcgis- lature liad intended to totally deprive' the persons who are not dependent on the deceased workman of their right to compensation.

1946In Bigby v. Pelican Bay Lumber Co., 173 Ore. 682 , 147 P. (2d) 199 , Atchison v. May, 201 La. 1003 , 10 So. (2d) 785 , and Treat v. Los Angeles Gas & Electric Corporation, 82 Cal. App. 610 , 256 Pac. 447 , cited by the lower court in its extensive and well-reasoned opinion, it was held, construing workmen’s compensation acts similar to ours, that in establishing the exclusiveness of the remedy provided by said acts, the Lcgis- lature liad intended to totally deprive' the persons who are not dependent on the deceased workman of their right to compensation.

1946In Bigby v. Pelican Bay Lumber Co., 173 Ore. 682 , 147 P. (2d) 199 , Atchison v. May, 201 La. 1003 , 10 So. (2d) 785 , and Treat v. Los Angeles Gas & Electric Corporation, 82 Cal. App. 610 , 256 Pac. 447 , cited by the lower court in its extensive and well-reasoned opinion, it was held, construing workmen’s compensation acts similar to ours, that in establishing the exclusiveness of the remedy provided by said acts, the Lcgis- lature liad intended to totally deprive' the persons who are not dependent on the deceased workman of their right to compensation.

1946In Bigby v. Pelican Bay Lumber Co., 173 Ore. 682 , 147 P. (2d) 199 , Atchison v. May, 201 La. 1003 , 10 So. (2d) 785 , and Treat v. Los Angeles Gas & Electric Corporation, 82 Cal. App. 610 , 256 Pac. 447 , cited by the lower court in its extensive and well-reasoned opinion, it was held, construing workmen’s compensation acts similar to ours, that in establishing the exclusiveness of the remedy provided by said acts, the Lcgis- lature liad intended to totally deprive' the persons who are not dependent on the deceased workman of their right to compensation.

1946In Bigby v. Pelican Bay Lumber Co., 173 Ore. 682 , 147 P. (2d) 199 , Atchison v. May, 201 La. 1003 , 10 So. (2d) 785 , and Treat v. Los Angeles Gas & Electric Corporation, 82 Cal. App. 610 , 256 Pac. 447 , cited by the lower court in its extensive and well-reasoned opinion, it was held, construing workmen’s compensation acts similar to ours, that in establishing the exclusiveness of the remedy provided by said acts, the Lcgis- lature liad intended to totally deprive' the persons who are not dependent on the deceased workman of their right to compensation.

1941In the case In re Gates, supra, the controversy over the custody of the child was between her mother, who had deserted her when she was less than one year old, and her aunt and uncle who gave her a home and their love and were in better circumstances than the mother to enable them to continue supporting and educating her.

1938The case comes within the principle stated in Robinson v. Doe, 224 Mass. 319, 320 , 112 N. E. 1007 , and in Coughlin v. Rosen, supra.” The ease at bar on its merits—that is to say, if we are to weigh the evidence for and against the theory that the employee was acting within the scope of his authority—is a border case.

1938The case comes within the principle stated in Robinson v. Doe, 224 Mass. 319, 320 , 112 N. E. 1007 , and in Coughlin v. Rosen, supra.” The ease at bar on its merits—that is to say, if we are to weigh the evidence for and against the theory that the employee was acting within the scope of his authority—is a border case.

1937We repeat, we do not think it would do to put that interpretation upon article 1481.’ “In the case of Succession of Filhiol, 119 La. 998 , the court distinguished the case of Jahraus with respect to what constituted a secret relation between the parties and found a state of concubinage to exist between them where the facts, barring the question of being notoriously known, were very similar to the facts of the ease at bar.

1934Among the cases cited there are two of the United States Supreme Court: Bowers v. N. Y. & Albany Co., 273 U. S. 346 , and Russell et al. v. United States, 278 U. S. 181 .

1934Among the cases cited there are two of the United States Supreme Court: Bowers v. N. Y. & Albany Co., 273 U. S. 346 , and Russell et al. v. United States, 278 U. S. 181 .