Also known as: intangibles · intangible property · intangible assets
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
Property lacking physical form or substance that cannot be touched. An incorporeal asset such as intellectual property, securities, bank accounts, contract rights, or causes of action.
Israel Irving prepares notes summarizing witness interviews for an upcoming trial. The notes lack any physical embodiment beyond digital files. When the opposing party seeks discovery, the court treats the notes as qualifying for work-product protection because they constitute the intangible equivalent of tangible material prepared in anticipation of litigation.
The board of Ideal Solutions authorizes issuance of stock to Ines Ibarra in exchange for her agreement to provide future consulting services. The services qualify as intangible property or benefit to the corporation. After the board determines the consideration adequate, the shares are treated as fully paid and nonassessable once the services begin.
Isaac Irving, domiciled in State A, assigns payment rights under a contract to a creditor in State B. The assignment involves an intangible right without physical situs. A court applies the law of the state with the most significant relationship to the debtor and the assignment to determine whether the transfer is effective.
Ines Ibarra attends a segregated school where she cannot interact with students of other races. The separation produces intangible feelings of inferiority that affect her ability to learn and engage with peers. A court recognizes these non-quantifiable effects as constitutionally significant in evaluating equal educational opportunity.
These cases originated in the states of Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware. In each case, minors of the Negro race, through their legal representatives, sought the aid of the courts in obtaining admission to the public schools of their community on a nonsegregated basis after being denied admission to schools attended by white children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to race. In the Kansas case, Negro children of elementary school age residing in Topeka brought an action in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas to enjoin enforcement of a Kansas statute which permits cities of more than 15,000 population to maintain separate school facilities for Negro and white students. The three-judge District Court found that segregation in public education has a detrimental effect upon Negro children but denied relief on the ground that the Negro and white schools were substantially equal with respect to buildings, transportation, curricula, and educational qualifications of teachers. In the South Carolina case, Negro children of both elementary and high school age residing in Clarendon County brought an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina to enjoin enforcement of state constitutional and statutory provisions requiring segregation. The three-judge District Court denied relief, found the Negro schools inferior, and ordered the defendants to begin immediately to equalize the facilities while sustaining the validity of the contested provisions. In the Virginia case, Negro children of high school age residing in Prince Edward County brought a similar action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The three-judge District Court denied relief after finding the Negro school inferior in physical plant, curricula, and transportation and ordering equalization while upholding the segregation laws. In the Delaware case, Negro children of both elementary and high school age residing in New Castle County brought an action in the Delaware Court of Chancery to enjoin enforcement of state constitutional and statutory provisions requiring segregation. The Chancellor gave judgment for the plaintiffs and ordered their immediate admission to schools previously attended only by white children on the ground that the Negro schools were inferior with respect to teacher training, pupil-teacher ratio, extracurricular activities, physical plant, and time and distance involved in travel. The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed. The cases reached the Supreme Court on direct appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1253 or on certiorari. Argument was heard in the 1952 Term, and reargument was heard in the 1953 Term on certain questions propounded by the Court, including the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. In the cases other than Delaware, the courts below found that the Negro and white schools involved have been equalized, or are being equalized, with respect to buildings, curricula, qualifications and salaries of teachers, and other tangible factors. The Supreme Court consolidated the cases for consideration together because a common legal question justified their consideration despite different facts and local conditions.
View caseIsmael Ibrahim asserts a liberty interest in his claimed relationship with a child born during the mother's marriage to another man. The claimed connection consists of intangible fibers linking parent and child. A court examines whether those intangible ties are sufficiently substantial to receive constitutional protection.
In May 1976 Carole D. and Gerald D. married in Las Vegas and established a home in Playa del Rey, California. In the summer of 1978 Carole began an adulterous affair with neighbor Michael H. In September 1980 she conceived Victoria D., who was born on May 11, 1981. Gerald was listed as father on the birth certificate and has always held her out as his daughter. Soon after delivery Carole told Michael she believed he might be the father. Blood tests performed in October 1981 showed a 98.07 percent probability that Michael was Victoria's father. During the first three years of her life, Victoria remained always with Carole, but found herself within a variety of quasi-family units. In November 1982 Michael filed a filiation action in California Superior Court seeking to establish paternity and visitation rights. In March 1983 the court appointed a guardian ad litem for Victoria, who filed a cross-complaint asserting a right to maintain filial relationships with both men. In April 1984 Carole and Michael signed a stipulation acknowledging Michael as Victoria's natural father, but Carole later directed her attorneys not to file it. In June 1984 Carole reconciled with Gerald; they now reside together with Victoria and two later-born children in New York. In May 1984 Michael and Victoria sought visitation pendente lite. A court-appointed psychologist recommended sole custody with Carole and limited visitation for Michael; the Superior Court ordered such visitation. On October 19, 1984 Gerald moved for summary judgment under California Evidence Code § 621. On January 28, 1985 the Superior Court granted the motion, finding no triable issues of fact as to paternity, and denied continued visitation. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court and upheld the constitutionality of the statute in 1987. The California Supreme Court denied discretionary review. On February 29, 1988, the United States Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction of the present appeal.
View caseIngrid Innes holds an unpaid bill against a decedent's estate. The claim is an intangible interest without physical form. A court treats the cause of action as property protected by the Due Process Clause, requiring adequate notice before the claim can be extinguished.
In November 1978, H. Everett Pope, Jr., was admitted to St. John Medical Center, a hospital in Tulsa, Oklahoma. On April 2, 1979, while still at the hospital, he died testate. His wife, appellee JoAnne Pope, initiated probate proceedings in the District Court of Tulsa County. The court entered an order setting a hearing, admitted the will to probate, and named appellee as executrix, issuing letters testamentary to her. Following her appointment, the court ordered appellee to immediately give notice to creditors. Appellee published notice in the Tulsa Daily Legal News for two consecutive weeks beginning July 17, 1979. The notice advised creditors that they must file any claim against the estate within two months of the first publication. Appellant Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc., a subsidiary of St. John Medical Center and the assignee of a claim for expenses connected with the decedent's hospital stay, did not file a claim with appellee within the two-month period. In October 1983, appellant filed an Application for Order Compelling Payment of Expenses of Last Illness in the District Court of Tulsa County. The district court denied the application. The Oklahoma Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment. Appellant then sought rehearing, raising a due process challenge to the nonclaim statute's notice provisions for the first time. The Court of Appeals rejected the due process claim on the merits in a supplemental opinion. Appellant sought review in the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, which granted certiorari and affirmed the Court of Appeals' judgment. The United States Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction and heard the case.
View caseYes. An intangible encompasses any incorporeal asset such as a cause of action or contract right. Primary authorities confirm that such interests qualify as property even without physical embodiment.
Supporting sources
Yes. A board may authorize shares for any tangible or intangible property or benefit to the corporation, including services performed or contracts for future services, provided the board determines the consideration adequate.
Supporting sources
Work-product protection extends to the intangible equivalent of tangible material prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial. Digital files or notes summarizing interviews therefore receive the same protection as physical documents.
Supporting sources