DiLucia v. Clemens
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Concurrence
*475CIRILLO, President Judge,
concurring:
While I agree with the result reached by the majority, I believe that the central issue of the transferability of the res was not adequately addressed. Since this goes directly to the validity of the trust, and hence the holding of the case, I write separately.
Clemens, the settlor and trustee, argues that, because the stock was “restricted” when the trust document was executed, it could not be the subject of a trust. He also asserts that the subject matter was not sufficiently identifiable. For these reasons Clemens argues that no trust was created.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Harold Patz Trust v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1977
- Thaw EstateSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
- Gustave T. Swoboda and Emily L. Swoboda, Husband and Wife v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1958
- Briggs' EstateSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
- Carter v. CarterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.