Legal Opinion
Huther v. Marine Midland Bank, N. A.
Rochester City Court
Decided April 17, 1989PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
*698OPINION OF THE COURT
John Manning Regan, J.
The evidence adduced at the trial of this action has established the facts which follow.
Sometime prior to the fall of 1986, William S. Huther borrowed approximately $31,000 from the defendant, Marine Midland Bank, N. A. (hereinafter referred to as the bank). He secured repayment of this loan with stock from Eastman Kodak Company and Mobil Corporation.
During 1986, the Congress of the United States enacted a tax reform bill which abolished favorable income tax treatment of capital gains transactions. The bill became effective on January 1, 1987.…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Theatre Enterprises, Inc. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1954
- Gross v. SweetNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
- United States Steel Corp. v. Fortner Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
- North Shore Bottling Co. v. C. Schmidt & Sons, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1968
- Rich v. New York Central & Hudson River RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Bank of China v. David C.W. ChanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1991