Waligura v. Waligura
Citations
- 2023 Ohio 3747
Syllabus
The trial court did not err in finding wife voluntarily underemployed and imputing an annual income of $56,000 where Wife is qualified to work as a speech language pathologist. The trial court also did not err in classifying money given to the parties by wife's parents as a gift rather than a loan where there was no evidence of the existence of a loan other than wife's self-serving testimony. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in establishing the date husband's divorce complaint was filed as the de facto termination date of the marriage where the parties had already attempted a collaborative process to terminate their marriage, were already living separately, and maintained separate bank accounts.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that a \private plaintiff may not maintain an aiding and abetting suit under § 10(b).\
- holding that the conclusion that Congress did not intend to impose aiding and abetting liability under section 10(b
- holding that § 10(b) of the Act does not support claims by private plaintiffs of aiding and abetting liability
- holding that section 10(b) does not create a cause of action for aiding and abetting liability
- holding that in the civil context, § 10(b) “does not itself reach those who aid and abet a § 10(b) violation”
- holding that § 10(b) of the Act does not support claims by private plaintiffs of aiding and abetting liability
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: M. Powell
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.