Professors David Levine & Morris Ratner 1
|
|
- Caren Henderson
- 8 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 I. Practice Midterm Exam Civil Procedure I - Section 3 (Two Small Sections) On October 5, 2012, Professors Levine and Ratner jointly gave an ungraded practice midterm to students enrolled in Civil Procedure I, Section 3. A copy of the practice midterm is provided along with this discussion and presentation of sample answers, as a separate PDF. Professors Levine and Ratner will discuss the practice exam and these sample answers at a special bonus (i.e., extra, optional) joint session of both Section 3 small sections on Wednesday October 17, 2012, at 3:30 p.m., in Room H. II. Characteristics of Good Answers Section III, below, provides edited excerpts of student answers. These answers are examples of strong answers, i.e., answers that, though imperfect, would have placed well on a curve. Relatively open-ended essay questions can be answered using a variety of successful writing styles and approaches. The best exam answers had the following general characteristics in common: 1. They spotted the key issues. 2. They precisely used the doctrinal language of civil procedure. 3. They correctly identified relevant rules and decisions. 4. They applied the rules and case law to the unique facts presented by the hypothetical. 5. They acknowledged and confronted potential counter-arguments. 6. Where appropriate, they appealed to the policies or values underlying the doctrine. The sample answers presented herein may contain errors, and do not represent the only approaches that could have been taken to each question. Instead, they are presented as examples of exams that stood out as being relatively nicely executed. For each Question, we have selected one answer from Professor Levine s small section and one answer from Professor Ratner s small section; Professors Levine and Ratner have emphasized distinct facets of the underlying course material, and have each given a slightly different spin to the material, something you should bear in mind when reviewing the sample answers. Professors David Levine & Morris Ratner 1
2 III. Sample Answers Question 1 Sample Answer A (Excerpted and Adapted from Student Answer (Levine Small Section)) P filed a complaint in federal court alleging she slipped and fell on Vessel and fractured her ankle after a night of drinking. First count alleges negligence bc stairway was not properly maintained. Second count alleges negligence bc D served her alcohol after she was intoxicated. She then seeks damages for person injury, physical and mental pain, and medical expenses of 75,000. Question Presented: Can the defense file a motion to challenge allegations of the complaint, and will such a motion be likely granted? Short Answer: While there are several motions that could potentially be brought, it is unlikely any of them would be granted bc the complaint likely satisfies the rules set out in FRCP. Analysis: Failure to State a Claim: Did the P sufficiently state a claim? In federal court, (notice pleading jurisdiction), the P must provide a short and plain statement showing he is entitled to relief (FRCP 8(a)(2)). Traditionally, this requirement has been interpreted as requiring only notice to the D and (court and public) of the proceeding and what counts the P alleges. The Supreme Court held in Swierkiewicz that the "ping pong game" where allegations are alleged and denied by the parties back and forth does not need to be played at the pleadings stage. Additional information of what exactly happened is unlikely to be required by the court, unlike in a Fact Pleading jurisdiction (Gillespie case). Here, the P states she slipped and fell in both counts. She does not provide specific details of what exactly happened as a detailed narrative because she merely states that she fell due to negligence of D. However, she provides a short and plain statement and likely shows she is entitled to relief because she states she was injured as a result of negligence on behalf of D, explaining that the D's negligence in maintaining the stairway (count 1) and negligence through over-service of alcohol (count 2) led to her damages. While this would not likely be enough in a fact pleading jurisdiction due to lack of details, this complaint likely satisfies FRCP 8(a)(2) by providing notice. However, the D can argue that FRCP 8(a)(2) is not fully satisfied, under the new Iqbal/Twombly standard because it does not plausibly state a claim. In Iqbal, the court held that the P must show an allegation of a government conspiracy must be shown to be plausible, not merely possible. Here, unlike Iqbal, there is no case against high level government officials, and it is not a case involving a governmental conspiracy because there is only allegation of negligence against a cruise company. Additionally, the complaint is likely to be deemed plausible as it is, because it is of an event that likely often occurs (slip and fall). Thus, the court is unlikely to require additional information to consider the complaint plausible under Iqbal. Professors David Levine & Morris Ratner 2
3 If we were to decide that there is a chance the court will consider R8(a)(2) not satisfied, the motion that should be filed is 12(b)(6). FRCP 12(b)(6) provides that a motion for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted can be filed prior to filing the answer. While we can use this motion to challenge the sufficiency of the stated claim in the complaint, it is unlikely to be granted for reasons above. Consistency: Can the complaint be challenged because of inconsistent causes of action? FRCP 8(d)(3) states a party may state as many claims it has, regardless of consistency. In McCormick the court held that a P may file inconsistent causes of action as long as she does not know the truth of what actually happens, and is acting in good faith. It then becomes the job of the court (jury) to determine what truly happened, and return verdicts on the separate causes of action that are consistent with each other. Here, the P alleges in count 1 that she fell bc of negligence in maintaining the stairway and in count 2 that she fell because of being intoxicated as a result of being over-served alcohol. These counts are not necessarily inconsistent because it is possible that both factors contributed to her fall. However, even if we can convince the court that they are inconsistent, the court is still unlikely to dismiss either count, because if the P does not truly know which factor led to her fall, it will be the job of the jury to decide what truly happened. We can argue that bc she knew whether or not she was over-served alcohol, she should know which of the 2 allegations is truly what happened., and thus acted in bad faith by filing inconsistent causes of action. However, because the counts are not necessarily inconsistent, it is unlikely the court would dismiss either count on these grounds. If we were to decide there is a chance the court will consider these facts inconsistent and filed in bad faith, we would file a 12(f) motion. FRCP 12(f) states the court may strike any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. Here, we can argue that the inconsistency leads to at least one untrue count and thus at least one count is immaterial to the complaint. However, the court is unlikely to grant this motion for reasons stated above. There is also no scandalous, or redundant matter. Thus, the court is unlikely to grant a 12(f) motion for any reason. More Definite Statement: Can this complaint be considered not definite enough? FRCP 12(e) allows a party to move for a more definite statement for a complaint that is so vague and ambiguous that the D cannot phrase a response. This motion is reserved for extreme cases where the complaint is written in a foreign language or in poetic or otherwise difficult to understand language. In Harbor Commissioners the court held that this motion cannot be used as another way to claim failure to state a claim (12(b)(6)). Here, the complaint is written in simple, plain language that is easy to understand. Thus, the court is unlikely to grant a 12(e) motion. Special Damages: Can alleged special damages be considered not specific enough? FRCP 9(g) requires for special damages to be specifically stated. Special damages include things like lost wages and medical expenses. Here, the P claims medical expenses. She, however, states them specifically to be in excess of $75,000 in both counts of her complaint. Thus, it is unlikely that the court will find special damages not pled specifically enough. If we were to decide there is a chance the court will consider damages requiring more specificity under 9(g), we would file a 12(f) motion. See above for 12(f) explanation. We would claim that because of lack of specificity on special Professors David Levine & Morris Ratner 3
4 damages, they are immaterial to the complaint. However, the court is unlikely to grant this motion for reasons stated above. Question 1 Sample Answer B (Excerpted and Adapted from Student Exam Answer (Ratner Small Section)) As the defendant filing a motion in response to a plaintiff's complaint, CCC s options are framed by Rule 12. After the complaint has been filed, CCC has 21 days to answer; however, if we file one of the pre-answer motions, 12(b)-12(f), we have additional time to answer (pegged to date of resolution of motions to dismiss). We should consider filing a Rule 12(e) motion for a more definite statement. However, this is only used when a complaint is determined to be "unintelligible" (Board of Harbor Commissioner). As plaintiff's complaint clearly alleges that she slipped and fell, suffering injuries, and/or that she was over-served alcohol leading to her intoxication and fall, the complaint is reasonably understandable and a Rule 12(e) motion would thus most likely be denied. A motion for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) has a greater likelihood of success. This motion is linked to Rule 8(a)(2) which pertains to the contents of the complaint itself. They are tied because a Rule12 (b)(6) failure to state a claim may be granted if the allegations fail to meet the pleading standard articulated in Rule 8(a)(2). The current test used to determine the sufficiency of the complaint is the Iqbal/Twombley test. This test has two parts. Under the first part of the test, we review the allegations of the complaint, labeling them as either fact allegations or as mere legal conclusions; factual allegations are accepted as true for purposes of the motion to dismiss, but legal conclusions are not. Under the first count, if we take away plaintiff's allegations that Vessel under CC was negligently maintained, recognizing that the word negligently is a mere legal conclusion, then we are left with the facts that 1) Ms. Panning slipped and fell on a stairway 2) suffered personal injuries and 3) suffered physical and mental pain 4) incurred medical expenses of $75,000. These facts are then applied to the second part of the test: whether the factual allegations, accepted as true for purposes of the motion to dismiss, plausibly state a claim (standard established by Twombley, i.e., that "the facts are enough to raise a right to relief above speculative level." Put differently, the facts alleged, if true, should be enough to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of actual negligence. The factual allegations in this complaint do not seem to establish negligence; they do not show what duty, if any, was violated. This may lead the judge to grant the motion to dismiss in our favor. On the other hand, Form 11 is as barebones as is this complaint, and was deemed satisfactory by the Court in Twombly; so perhaps this complaint, though not seemingly sufficient under a strict application of the Iqbal/Twombly interpretation of Rule 8(a)(2), will also survive a challenge under Rule 12(b)(6). A similar analysis applies to Count II. If we take away the conclusory allegation that our client was negligently over-served alcohol, plaintiff is left with fact that she slipped on the stairway, that she was intoxicated, and that she suffered personal injuries. In this count, the factual allegations make it more likely that our motion to dismiss will be Professors David Levine & Morris Ratner 4
5 denied, even under a relatively strict reading of Iqbal/Twombly, because our client's overservice of alcohol may, if accepted as true, constitute a negligent action depending on the nature of our client's duty in connection with serving alcohol. Count II is thus a harder call. Even if the judge grants our Rule 12(b)(6) motion challenging the sufficiency of the allegations, the judge may do so with leave to amend. This practice is rooted in the value of fairness and in the general preference in our modern system of civil procedure for deciding cases on the merits (and not on a technicality). Therefore, if we file a motion to dismiss, there may be an amendment to the complaint. The fact that the two claims themselves could be potentially contradictory (that CCC was negligent in serving her alcohol and that CCC was negligent in terms of the way it maintained the ship stairs) is not necessarily a violation of the pleading rules. Under 8(d), she is allowed to plead inconsistent claims as long as she genuinely does not know which facts are true. We cannot use her contradictory claims against her in order to throw her claim out, as long as she genuinely does not know whether it was her drunkenness or standard of care of the cruise ship that caused her accident. She is allowed to discover more information in discovery to see which evidences support one of her claims (McKormick). All in all, our best bet is to file a 12(b)(6) motion. Professors David Levine & Morris Ratner 5
6 Question 2 - Sample Answer A (Excerpted and Adapted from Student Answer (Levine Small Section)) If our client has factual evidence to show that Panning was not a passenger not the Vessel on May 5, 2012 we would encourage our client to not file a general denial but rather to respond to each item in turn and file a specific denial for each claim. Under 8(b)(3) with general denials you are denying every single thing in the claim, including, for example, the claim in 1 that the Vessel was owned by CCC. You would also, for example, be denying that the Plaintiff is able to bring a case in this particular jurisdiction. Because of this, it is much better to file specific denials rather than a general denial. We can deny her claim that she was on board a ship owned by CCC without having to deny that she has a right to bring suit in that jurisdiction or even something as particular as our own name. The rule is typically that you are assumed to affirm everything and you deny specifically, rather than denying everything and affirming a few things. As seen in the Jones v. Clinton case it is also acceptable for our client to state a lack of knowledge or information defense against each of the claims. Rather than denying that she did have an accident or did slip and fall, it might be more prudent under Rule 8(b)(5) to claim that our client, thinking that they are not the intended party, have no knowledge of that claim. They can easily assert that they have no knowledge as to whether or not she slipped and fell as a result of a ship negligently maintaining their stairwells. If she really was not a passenger on board our ship our client would literally have no knowledge or record. Choosing to state a lack of knowledge rather than flat out denial will safeguard our client against some of the repercussions of Rule 11, which is a rule indicating that any signed material you submit to the court (for example a signed responsive pleading) are true to the best of your knowledge. Rule 11 does not make an exception for facts that you could have reasonably been made aware of. Under Rule 11(b)(4) the denial of factual contentions can only be made after a reasonable inquiry under the circumstances. Given the lack of information presented, the Plaintiff could be confused as to what ship she was on. If it was later found out that our client owned a sister company, or a subsidiary company that owned a ship upon which the Plaintiff was a passenger, we reasonably had access for inquiry into that information and a denial of her claim might subject parties to Rule 11. Question 2 - Sample Answer B (Excerpted and Adapted from Student Answer (Ratner Small Section)) If CCC does not believe that Panning was a passenger on its Vessel, and it wishes to file a general denial, it may do so under Rule 8(b)(3). However, a general denial is only valid when a party intends in good faith to deny all allegation of a pleading. Here, CCC only wishes to deny the fact that Panning was a passenger, so it only effectively wishes to deny Allegation 1 as listed in the fact pattern. It would serve the CCC's best interest to instead admit or deny the complaint s allegations specifically. Here, the plaintiff appears to have suffered extensive injuries, so Allegation 2 and Allegation 5 from the fact pattern cannot be denied. Therefore, CCC should only deny Allegation 1. Professors David Levine & Morris Ratner 6
7 Filing a general denial under Rule 8(b)(3) could also result in Rule 11 sanctions if the general denial were found to be unwarranted by the evidence found upon an objectively reasonable inquiry (Rule 11(b)(4)). Under Rule 11(b), when we present the court with a filing, it assumes that the attorney certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after a reasonable inquiry. If the filing does not satisfy this, the moving party can be subjected to Rule 11(c) sanctions by not performing a reasonable inquiry into the facts of the case. Here, we do not contest to the fact that Panning was injured, but rather just the notion that she was a passenger on the Vessel. Filing a general denial would effectively deny the fact that she had sustained injuries and could be interpreted as the firm not performing a reasonable inquiry into the facts. This could potentially warrant sanctions under Rule 11(c) because it may delay the proceedings or increase the cost of litigation, which the courts actively try to avoid. However, if we were to file a general denial, and we realized that we wanted to retract the denial, we could also file a withdrawal under Rule 11(c)(2) the safe harbor motion. This allows a party to withdraw claims, defenses, and other legal contentions within 21 days after service. The courts typically allow this in order to reduce the cost of litigation and in order to encourage the adversarial process by making the pleadings stay party-driven. It also gives the opportunity to the lawyer to rectify a potential mistake. All of these factors seek to improve the efficiency of the judicial process. Although the safe harbor motion presents an opportunity to not have sanctions imposed, it is in the best interest of CCC to answer the allegations with specific admissions or denials, rather than via a general denial. Professors David Levine & Morris Ratner 7
CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. ANSWER ) Defendant. ) )
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ANS (NAME) (ADDRESS) (CITY, STATE, ZIP) (TELEPHONE) Defendant Pro Se DISTRICT COURT CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA ) ) Case No.: Plaintiff,
More informationCIVIL PROCEDURE ESSAY #1.
CIVIL PROCEDURE ESSAY #1. Steven is the defendant in a negligence claim brought in Federal Court by Donna. 1. Steven asked the court to compel discovery of information concerning the statement, made by
More informationTitle 31 MARYLAND INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION
31.02.01.00 Title 31 MARYLAND INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION Subtitle 02 POWERS AND DUTIES HEARINGS Chapter 01 Hearings Authority: Insurance Article, 2-109 and 2-205 2-215; State Government Article, 10-206;
More informationcase 1:11-cv-00399-JTM-RBC document 35 filed 11/29/12 page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION
case 1:11-cv-00399-JTM-RBC document 35 filed 11/29/12 page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION CINDY GOLDEN, Plaintiff, v. No. 1:11 CV 399 STATE FARM MUTUAL
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * *
Case :0-cv-0-RLH -PAL Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * RIGHTHAVEN, LLC, a Nevada limitedliability company, Plaintiff, vs. THOMAS A. DIBIASE, an individual,
More information2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U. Order filed September 23, 2013 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2013
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). 2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U Order
More informationNC General Statutes - Chapter 1A Article 3 1
Article 3 Pleadings and Motions. Rule 7. Pleadings allowed; motions. (a) Pleadings. - There shall be a complaint and an answer; a reply to a counterclaim denominated as such; an answer to a crossclaim,
More informationHOW TO FILE AN ANSWER
PRO SE OFFICE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 500 PEARL STREET, ROOM 230 NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10007 Ruby J. Krajick CLERK OF COURT HOW TO FILE AN ANSWER An answer
More informationNorthern Insurance Company of New York v. Resinski
MONTGOMERY COUNTY LAW REPORTER 140-301 2003 MBA 30 Northern Ins. Co. of New York v. Resinski [140 M.C.L.R., Part II Northern Insurance Company of New York v. Resinski APPEAL and ERROR Motion for Summary
More informationColorado s Civil Access Pilot Project and the Changing Landscape of Business Litigation
Colorado s Civil Access Pilot Project and the Changing Landscape of Business Litigation On January 1, 2012, new rules approved by the Colorado Supreme Court entitled the Civil Access Pilot Project ( CAPP
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JAMES L. MARTIN, Plaintiff Below- Appellant, v. NATIONAL GENERAL ASSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant Below- Appellee. No. 590, 2013 Court Below Superior Court of
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 40459-1-II Appellant, UNPUBLISHED OPINION v. LOVERA M. BLACKCROW, Respondent. Armstrong, J. The Clallam County Superior
More informationCase: 1:10-cv-02125 Document #: 55 Filed: 02/03/11 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:411
Case: 1:10-cv-02125 Document #: 55 Filed: 02/03/11 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:411 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION GUARANTEE TRUST LIFE ) INSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) Plaintiff,
More informationCase 2:11-cv-03070-WHW -MCA Document 17 Filed 09/26/11 Page 1 of 6 PageID: 199 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Case 211-cv-03070-WHW -MCA Document 17 Filed 09/26/11 Page 1 of 6 PageID 199 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY KERRY FEDER, on behalf of herself and the putative class, Plaintiffs, WILLIAMS-SONOMA
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION. v. Case No: 2:15-cv-219-FtM-29DNF OPINION AND ORDER
Houston Specialty Insurance Company v. Titleworks of Southwest Florida, Inc. et al Doc. 20 HOUSTON SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS
More informationFILED December 15, 2015 Carla Bender 4 th District Appellate Court, IL
NOTICE This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e(1. 2015 IL App (4th 150225-U NO. 4-15-0225
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MYRA SELESNY, Personal Representative of the Estate of ABRAHAM SELESNY, UNPUBLISHED April 8, 2003 Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 236141 Oakland Circuit Court U.S. LIFE INSURANCE
More informationPersonal Injury Litigation
Personal Injury Litigation The Anatomy of a New York Personal Injury Lawsuit An ebook by Stuart DiMartini, Esq. 1325 Sixth Avenue, 27 th Floor New York, NY 10019 212-5181532 dimartinilaw.com Introduction
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Memorandum and Order
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CAROSELLA & FERRY, P.C., Plaintiff, v. TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-2344 Memorandum and Order YOHN,
More informationThe Effect of Product Safety Regulatory Compliance
PRODUCT LIABILITY Product Liability Litigation The Effect of Product Safety Regulatory Compliance By Kenneth Ross Product liability litigation and product safety regulatory activities in the U.S. and elsewhere
More informationATTORNEY HELP CENTER: MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
ATTORNEY HELP CENTER: MEDICAL MALPRACTICE The healthcare industry has exploded over the last thirty years. Combined with an increasing elderly population, thanks to the Baby Boomer generation, the general
More informationCase 4:13-cv-01104 Document 40 Filed in TXSD on 02/26/15 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
Case 4:13-cv-01104 Document 40 Filed in TXSD on 02/26/15 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION SHARON JACKSON, et al. Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL ACTION H-13-1104
More informationPARENT GUIDE TO THE JUVENILE COURT CHIPS PROCESS
PARENT GUIDE TO THE JUVENILE COURT CHIPS PROCESS INTRODUCTION This booklet has been prepared to help parents gain a better understanding of what to expect in Juvenile Court CHIPS proceedings (Chapter 48
More informationHP0868, LD 1187, item 1, 123rd Maine State Legislature An Act To Recoup Health Care Funds through the Maine False Claims Act
PLEASE NOTE: Legislative Information cannot perform research, provide legal advice, or interpret Maine law. For legal assistance, please contact a qualified attorney. Be it enacted by the People of the
More informationCase 1:10-cv-10170-NMG Document 38 Filed 06/15/11 Page 1 of 9. United States District Court District of Massachusetts MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Case 1:10-cv-10170-NMG Document 38 Filed 06/15/11 Page 1 of 9 WESTERN WORLD INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, v. JAMES CZECH and WILLIAMS BUILDING COMPANY, INC., Defendants. United States District Court
More informationTORT AND INSURANCE LAW REPORTER. Informal Discovery Interviews Between Defense Attorneys and Plaintiff's Treating Physicians
This article originally appeared in The Colorado Lawyer, Vol. 25, No. 26, June 1996. by Jeffrey R. Pilkington TORT AND INSURANCE LAW REPORTER Informal Discovery Interviews Between Defense Attorneys and
More informationNo. 2007-310-Appeal. (PC 06-3123) Present: Goldberg, Acting C.J., Flaherty, Suttell, Robinson, JJ., and Williams, C.J. (ret.).
Supreme Court No. 2007-310-Appeal. (PC 06-3123) Cathy Lee Barrette : v. : Vincent John Yakavonis, M.D. : Present: Goldberg, Acting C.J., Flaherty, Suttell, Robinson, JJ., and Williams, C.J. (ret.). O P
More informationThe Truth About CPLR Article 16
The DelliCarpini Law Firm Melville Law Center 877.917.9560 225 Old Country Road fax 631.923.1079 Melville, NY 11747 www.dellicarpinilaw.com John M. DelliCarpini Christopher J. DelliCarpini (admitted in
More informationASSEMBLY BILL No. 597
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 14, 2015 california legislature 2015 16 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597 Introduced by Assembly Member Cooley February 24, 2015 An act to amend Sections 36 and 877 of, and
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND STANLEY M. GRABILL, JR., * Plaintiff * * v. * CIVIL No. JKB-13-039 CORIZON, INC., * Defendant * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM Stanley
More informationSTEPHEN S. EDWARDS, individually and as Trustee of the Super Trust Fund, u/t/d June 15, 2001, Plaintiff/Appellant,
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZ. R. SUP. CT. 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STEPHEN
More informationEXAMINATION CIVIL PROCEDURE II -- LAW 6213. Section 13 -- Siegel. Spring 2014 INSTRUCTIONS
GWid: EXAMINATION CIVIL PROCEDURE II -- LAW 6213 Section 13 -- Siegel Spring 2014 INSTRUCTIONS 1. This is an open book examination. You may use any written materials that you have brought with you (including
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION KAREN M. McSHANE, et al., FEBRUARY TERM, 2003 Plaintiffs, No. 01117 v. Control No. 070576
More informationInformation for Worker s Compensation Clients
Information for Worker s Compensation Clients Overview of the Worker s Compensation Act Indiana Worker s Compensation cases are governed by a State law known as the Worker s Compensation Act. The legislature
More informationCOUNTY OF NASSAU. Justice. Defendants.
SHORT FORM ORDER SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU Present: HON. ZELDA JONAS Justice MARK THAILER and NANCY THAILER, - against - Plaintiffs, JULIE TAUB, individually and on behalf of HAL
More informationCase 2:10-cv-02263-JAR Document 98 Filed 05/04/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case 2:10-cv-02263-JAR Document 98 Filed 05/04/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS SANDRA H. DEYA and EDWIN DEYA, individually and as next friends and natural
More informationIN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, SALT LAKE COUNTY STATE OF UTAH. Case No. : Judge:
Alan W. Mortensen (6616) DEWSNUP, KING & OLSEN 36 South State Street, Ste. 2400 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone (801) 533-0400 Facsimile (801) 363-4218 Attorneys for Plaintiffs IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL
More informationPayment System Override Deems Transaction Not Ordinary
Payment System Override Deems Transaction Not Ordinary Ames Merchandising Corp. v. Cellmark Paper Inc. (In re Ames Dept. Stores, Inc.), 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 969 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2011) In Ames Merchandising
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION HINDA APPLE, Case No. 1:13-cv-01169 Plaintiff, Judge Dan Aaron Polster vs. MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER STRYKER CORP., et al.,
More informationCommonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: JANUARY 22, 2010; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2009-CA-000566-MR TOM COX APPELLANT APPEAL FROM LAUREL CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE JOHN KNOX MILLS,
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 LUZ RIVERA AND ABRIANNA RIVERA Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RONALD MANZI Appellee No. 948 EDA 2015 Appeal from the Order
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 5/28/15 Lopez v. Fishel Co. CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified
More informationIN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT
2016 IL App (1st) 150810-U Nos. 1-15-0810, 1-15-0942 cons. Fourth Division June 30, 2016 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in
More informationCLASS TIMES: Tuesday and Friday: 10:45am to 12:15pm
SOUTHWESTERN LAW SCHOOL CIVIL PROCEDURE II PROFESSOR DENNIS YOKOYAMA Syllabus, Course Requirements, and Grading Criteria SPRING 2011 CLASS TIMES: Tuesday and Friday: 10:45am to 12:15pm OFFICE HOURS: My
More informationDiscovery Devices. Rule 26 requires the automatic disclosure of a host of basic information regarding the case
Discovery Devices Automatic (mandatory) disclosure Rule 26 requires the automatic disclosure of a host of basic information regarding the case Interrogatories Questions addressed to the other party Depositions
More information2015 IL App (3d) 140820-U. Order filed July 17, 2015 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2015
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). 2015 IL App (3d) 140820-U Order
More informationIV. DISCOVERY TECHNIQUES FOR THE DEFENSE A. Interrogatories Interrogatories are the bane of a lawyer s existence, both from the standpoint of
IV. DISCOVERY TECHNIQUES FOR THE DEFENSE A. Interrogatories Interrogatories are the bane of a lawyer s existence, both from the standpoint of preparing the questions to the plaintiff party and of preparing
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case :0-cv-00-KJD-GWF Document Filed 0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 0 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. CHARLES JAJDELSKI, v. Plaintiff/Relator, KAPLAN, INC., Defendant.
More informationCase 2:14-cv-02386-MVL-DEK Document 33 Filed 04/14/15 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Case 2:14-cv-02386-MVL-DEK Document 33 Filed 04/14/15 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA KIRSTEN D'JUVE CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 14-2386 AMERICAN MODERN HOME INSURANCE
More informationTHE THREAT OF BAD FAITH LITIGATION ETHICAL HANDLING OF CLAIMS AND GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PRACTICES. By Craig R. White
THE THREAT OF BAD FAITH LITIGATION ETHICAL HANDLING OF CLAIMS AND GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PRACTICES By Craig R. White SKEDSVOLD & WHITE, LLC. 1050 Crown Pointe Parkway Suite 710 Atlanta, Georgia 30338 (770)
More informationFile a Written Response with the Court Answering Your Summons and Complaint
Sacramento County Public Law Library & Civil Self Help Center 609 9 th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 874-6012 www.saclaw.org RESPONDING TO A LAWSUIT File a Written Response with the Court Answering
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION EEOC versus BROWN & GROUP RETAIL, INC. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-06-3074 Memorandum and Order Regarding Discovery Motions,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
1 1 Daniel G. Shay, CA Bar #0 danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY 0 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 1B San Diego, California 0 Tel:.. Fax:.1. Benjamin H. Richman* brichman@edelson.com J.
More informationCase 2:10-cv-00802-CW Document 90 Filed 02/02/15 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
Case 2:10-cv-00802-CW Document 90 Filed 02/02/15 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION MURIELLE MOLIERE, Plaintiff, v. OPTION ONE MORTGAGE, et al., Defendants.
More informationCase 1:07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB Document 51 Filed 08/21/2008 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case 1:07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB Document 51 Filed 08/21/2008 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB ERNA GANSER, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT
More information2012 IL App (1st) 120353-U. No. 1-12-0353 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
2012 IL App (1st) 120353-U FIFTH DIVISION September 28, 2012 No. 1-12-0353 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited
More informationTHE TRIAL OF A LEGAL MALPRACTICE CASE: SELECTED PRACTICAL ISSUES BY: DAVID C. PISHKO ELLIOT PISHKO MORGAN, P.A. WINSTON-SALEM, NC
THE TRIAL OF A LEGAL MALPRACTICE CASE: SELECTED PRACTICAL ISSUES BY: DAVID C. PISHKO ELLIOT PISHKO MORGAN, P.A. WINSTON-SALEM, NC The trial of a legal malpractice action raises several practical issues
More informationCase 4:06-cv-00191 Document 12 Filed in TXSD on 05/25/06 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
Case 4:06-cv-00191 Document 12 Filed in TXSD on 05/25/06 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION BARBARA S. QUINN, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-06-00191
More informationData Preservation Duties and Protocols
Data Preservation Duties and Protocols November 2008 HOU:2858612.3 Discussion Outline I. The Differences Between Electronic and Paper Discovery II. The Parameters of Electronic Discovery III. Rule 37(e)
More informationCase 2:13-cv-03323-LMA-DEK Document 13 Filed 08/23/13 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ORDER AND REASONS
Case 2:13-cv-03323-LMA-DEK Document 13 Filed 08/23/13 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA EXPRESS LIEN INC. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS No. 13-3323 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CREDIT
More information2015 IL App (5th) 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT
NOTICE Decision filed 10/15/15. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2015 IL App (5th 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227
More information2014 IL App (1st) 123454-U No. 1-12-3454 February 11, 2014 Modified Upon Rehearing April 30, 2014 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT
2014 IL App (1st) 123454-U No. 1-12-3454 February 11, 2014 Modified Upon Rehearing April 30, 2014 THIRD DIVISION NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent
More informationOklahoma Supreme Court Declares Oklahoma s Lawsuit Reform Act of 2009 Unconstitutional
Oklahoma Supreme Court Declares Oklahoma s Lawsuit Reform Act of 2009 Unconstitutional On June 4, 2013, the Oklahoma Supreme Court issued two opinions invalidating as unconstitutional numerous Oklahoma
More informationNo. 1-10-0602 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
SECOND DIVISION May 31, 2011 No. 1-10-0602 Notice: This order was filed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under
More informationCase 1:13-cv-00796-RPM Document 23 Filed 02/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9
Case 1:13-cv-00796-RPM Document 23 Filed 02/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9 Civil Action No. 13-cv-00796-RPM MICHAEL DAY KEENEY, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Senior
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS DORETHA RAMSEY JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED September 12, 2006 v No. 262466 Wayne Circuit Court HARPER HOSPITAL, LC No. 04-402087-NI Defendant-Appellant.
More informationTITLE I REDUCTION OF ABUSIVE LITIGATION
109 STAT. 737 Public Law 104 67 104th Congress An Act To reform Federal securities litigation, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America
More informationCase 2:14-cv-00167-JCM-CWH Document 7 Filed 03/25/14 Page 1 of 8
Case :-cv-00-jcm-cwh Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 Ryan A. Hamilton NEVADA BAR NO. HAMILTON LAW S. Durango Dr., Ste. C Las Vegas, NV (0) - (0) - ryan@hamiltonlawlasvegas.com Attorney for the plaintiffs,
More informationCase 1:06-cv-01892-CKK Document 30 Filed 05/20/08 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:06-cv-01892-CKK Document 30 Filed 05/20/08 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COVAD COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 06 1892 (CKK) REVONET,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
Case 1:11-cv-00413-BLW Document 81 Filed 07/15/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO SEAN HILL Plaintiff, v. Case No. 1:11-cv-00413-BLW MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER UNITED
More informationNo. 1-09-3532 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
FOURTH DIVISION APRIL 28, 2011 No. 1-09-3532 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule
More informationCase 1:12-cv-11280-DJC Document 35 Filed 08/27/13 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 1:12-cv-11280-DJC Document 35 Filed 08/27/13 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS KAREN L. BACCHI, Individually and on Behalf of all Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff,
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division
PUBLISHED UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division IN RE: WILLIAM G. DADE ) Case No. 00-32487 ANN E. DADE ) Chapter 7 Debtors. ) ) ) DEBORAH R. JOHNSON ) Adversary
More informationIllinois Official Reports
Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Bukowski, 2015 IL App (1st) 140780 Appellate Court Caption CITIMORTGAGE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANNA BUKOWSKI and KATHERINE D. BUKOWSKI,
More informationAdopted: April 26, 2005 by Donald Bryan, Acting Commissioner, Department of Banking and Insurance.
INSURANCE DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND INSURANCE DIVISION OF INSURANCE Medical Malpractice Insurance- Prohibited Premium Increase Adopted New Rules: N.J.A.C. 11:27-5 Proposed: November 1, 2004 at 36 N.J.R.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA. Norfolk Division. This matter comes before the court on defendant Autonomy Corp.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division FILED APR 2 6 2011 ADISCOV, L.L.C., Plaintiff, CLERK. U.S. DISTRICT COUHT Uny.l e'.i K VA v. Civil No. 2:llcv201 AUTONOMY
More informationDecided: March 27, 2015. S14G0919. GALA et al. v. FISHER et al. This Court granted a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals in Fisher
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: March 27, 2015 S14G0919. GALA et al. v. FISHER et al. HINES, Presiding Justice. This Court granted a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals in Fisher v. Gala,
More informationSub. H.B. 9 * 126th General Assembly (As Reported by H. Civil and Commercial Law)
Aida S. Montano Bill Analysis Legislative Service Commission Sub. H.B. 9 * 126th General Assembly (As Reported by H. Civil and Commercial Law) Reps. Oelslager, Flowers, Buehrer, White, Trakas BILL SUMMARY
More informationUNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF LAW. LEGAL METHOD-CIVIL PROCEDURE (3 Hours) Day Division Wednesday, December 18, 1991
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF LAW LEGAL METHOD-CIVIL PROCEDURE (3 Hours) Day Division Wednesday, December 18, 1991 Professor Condlin - Section B 9:10 a.m. - 12:10 p.m. No. Signature: Printed Name: INSTRUCTIONS:
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 12-16065. D.C. Docket No. 2:12-cv-14312-KMM. versus
Case: 12-16065 Date Filed: 09/19/2013 Page: 1 of 20 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 12-16065 D.C. Docket No. 2:12-cv-14312-KMM BETTY BOLLINGER, versus
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS
1 1 1 1 0 1 FOR PUBLICATION IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS MARIANAS INSURANCE COMPANY, vs. Plaintiff, ISMAIL HOSSAIN, CHENG HU ZHENG, and CHUN HONG GAO MANGARERO,
More informationLowcountry Injury Law
Lowcountry Injury Law 1917 Lovejoy Street Post Office Drawer 850 Beaufort, South Carolina 29901 Personal Injury Phone (843) 524-9445 Auto Accidents Fax (843) 532-9254 Workers Comp DanDenton@Lawyer.com
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION RAIMO CORPORATION and/or : ISAAC LEIZEROWSKI : November Term 2003 : Plaintiffs, : No. 611
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MEMORANDUM. Bartle, C.J. December 14, 2006
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA REBECCA S. ZEIGENFUSE : CIVIL ACTION on behalf of herself and all : others similarly situated : : v. : : APEX ASSET MANAGEMENT,
More informationS09G0492. FORTNER v. GRANGE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY. We granted certiorari in this case, Fortner v. Grange Mutual Ins. Co., 294
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: October 19, 2009 S09G0492. FORTNER v. GRANGE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY. NAHMIAS, Justice. We granted certiorari in this case, Fortner v. Grange Mutual Ins. Co.,
More informationManaging Jones Act Personal Injury Litigation The Vessel Owner s Perspective. Lawrence R. DeMarcay, III
Managing Jones Act Personal Injury Litigation The Vessel Owner s Perspective by Lawrence R. DeMarcay, III Presented to the Offshore Marine Services Association / Loyola College of Law Industry Seminar
More informationNo. 2--07--1205 Filed: 12-19-08 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT
Filed: 12-19-08 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT WESTPORT INSURANCE Appeal from the Circuit Court CORPORATION, of McHenry County. Plaintiff and Counterdefendant-Appellee, v. No. 04--MR--53
More informationMORTAZAVI v. FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Dist. Court, SD California 201...
Page 1 of 7 MAJID MORTAZAVI, an individual; SOODABEH MORTAZAVI, an individual; and RANCHO FARM CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, a California corporation, Plaintiffs, v. FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a New Jersey
More informationReports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal
More informationASSEMBLY BILL No. 597
california legislature 2015 16 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597 Introduced by Assembly Member Cooley February 24, 2015 An act to amend Sections 36 and 877 of, and to add Chapter 6 (commencing with
More informationThe N.C. State Bar v. Wood NO. COA10-463. (Filed 1 February 2011) 1. Attorneys disciplinary action convicted of criminal offense
The N.C. State Bar v. Wood NO. COA10-463 (Filed 1 February 2011) 1. Attorneys disciplinary action convicted of criminal offense The North Carolina State Bar Disciplinary Hearing Commission did not err
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION. Case No. 2:12-cv-45-FtM-29SPC OPINION AND ORDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION SOUTH BAY PLANTATION CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., a not for profit corporation also known as SOUTH BAY PLANTATION ASSOCIATES,
More informationCase 5:14-cv-00590-OLG Document 9 Filed 07/31/14 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
Case 5:14-cv-00590-OLG Document 9 Filed 07/31/14 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION DESTINY ANNMARIE RIOS Plaintiff VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-cv-00590
More informationWhat to Expect In Your Lawsuit
What to Expect In Your Lawsuit A lawsuit is a marathon not a sprint. Stewart R. Albertson. There is a saying that the wheels of justice move slowly. That is as true today as when it was initially stated.
More informationSUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA No. 97-CC-1443 J. RAY THOMAS Versus SISTER OF CHARITY OF THE INCARNATE WORD SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA D/B/A SCHUMPERT MEDICAL CENTER AND XYZ INSURANCE COMPANY ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2007 MT 267
DA 07-0015 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2007 MT 267 HOGENSON CONSTRUCTION OF NORTH DAKOTA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MONTANA STATE FUND, Defendant and Appellee. APPEAL FROM: District
More informationCase: 1:10-cv-00363-WHB Doc #: 31 Filed: 09/02/10 1 of 14. PageID #: 172
Case: 1:10-cv-00363-WHB Doc #: 31 Filed: 09/02/10 1 of 14. PageID #: 172 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JAMES MEYER, v. Plaintiff, DEBT RECOVERY SOLUTIONS
More informationIN THE WORKERS COMPENSATION COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2015 MTWCC 13. WCC No. 2015-3545 CAR WERKS, LLC. Petitioner. vs. UNINSURED EMPLOYERS FUND
IN THE WORKERS COMPENSATION COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2015 MTWCC 13 WCC No. 2015-3545 CAR WERKS, LLC Petitioner vs. UNINSURED EMPLOYERS FUND Respondent/Third Party Petitioner vs. JAMES E. GAWRONSKI
More informationCase: 1:11-cv-07802 Document #: 48 Filed: 03/12/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:<pageid>
Case: 1:11-cv-07802 Document #: 48 Filed: 03/12/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION VONZELL WHITE, Plaintiff, Case
More informationTAX RETURNS AND LOSS OF EARNINGS JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS
TAX RETURNS AND LOSS OF EARNINGS CLAIMS JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS DISCOVERY OF TAX RETURNS -- LOSS OF EARNINGS CLAIMS A PLAINTIFF MAY NOT ASSERT A PRIVILEGE TO TX RETURNS AND THUS
More information