Opinion ID: 2617041
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: issues

Text: Shaw presents the following issues for review: 1. Whether evidence of a cohabiting couple's agreement to share in the financial growth of their ten-year association and their conduct in maintaining a stable, mutually beneficial, family relationship requires a jury decision on the ultimate issues of the creation of an express contract or an implied contract. 2. Whether evidence of the parties' agreement to share equally in the control, direction and pecuniary outcome of their rental property enterprise requires a jury decision on the ultimate issue of the creation of a partnership or joint venture. 3. Whether one cohabitor is entitled to recover the reasonable value of her services to the other cohabitor, when she provides such services, in part, in exchange for his commitment to share equally in the financial growth of their association. 4. Whether Wyoming recognizes a claim for just and equitable division of property earned during a long, stable, non-marital, family relationship. 5. Whether a California corporation subjects itself to the personal jurisdiction of Wyoming courts by establishing an office in Wyoming, employing workers in Wyoming, and transacting business in Wyoming. Appellee, Smith, states the issues as follows: 1. To create an express contract, Wyoming law requires, inter alia, (1) consideration and (2) a meeting of the minds. Is there a genuine issue of material fact as to the formation of an express contract between the parties where the terms of the contract are vague and unclear, and the evidence fails to show that the consideration for the contract was bargained for by both parties? 2. For an implied contract to exist proof of the intention of the parties is essential. Is there a genuine issue of material fact with regard to the formation of an implied contract between parties where the conduct of one party does not show an intention to enter into a contractual relationship? 3. Is Appellant entitled to recover the value of household services rendered during the period of the parties' cohabiting relationship where there is no contract between the parties and where the evidence does not reflect that Appellee had reason to know that Appellant expected additional compensation for such services? 4. A partnership or joint venture is formed where the parties (1) have an equal right of control over the venture and (2) agree to share in both the profits and losses of the business endeavor. Is there a genuine issue of fact with regard to the formation of a joint venture where Appellant did not have the right to transfer or convey the investment properties and where Appellant admits that the parties did not agree that they would share in the profits and the losses associated with the investment properties? 5. Should the property acquired by one party during the period of a cohabiting relationship be treated as marital property upon dissolution of the relationship? Appellee, SGN, presents one issue: Whether a corporate officer/shareholder who telecommutes from the forum state may subject a foreign corporation to personal jurisdiction, particularly when the plaintiff's claim arises from the telecommuter's individual activities, as opposed to his corporate activities.