identifying whether the arguments advanced by your

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "identifying whether the arguments advanced by your"

Transcription

1 Introduction paper sets out some basic principles personal injury lawyers need to consider This Much of it will be devoted to explaining just how limited appellate review is. Knowledge identifying whether the arguments advanced by your provinces and territories are not so gentle: see Housen Nikolaisen and H.L.. Canada. 2 Most of the time appellate judges are very mindful of the limits of appellate review and do not expect counsel to dwell on them at length. However, they do expect Statutory Basis of Appellate Review The courts are creatures of statute. 3 Although they review the decisions of Appellate superior courts, they do not possess the inherent jurisdiction enjoyed by a Nikolaisen, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235, 2002 SCC 33. Housen H.L. Canada (Attorney General), [2005] S.C.R. 401, 2005 SCC Kourtessis M.N.R., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 53, LaForest J. at 69-70; Defending Your Damage Award on Appeal Kirk F. Stevens, Lerners LLP when they find themselves trying to uphold damage awards in an appellate court. Because the grounds upon which an appellate court may interfere with an assessment of damages are limited, this subject is narrow. Hence, this paper will be relatively brief. of those limits should assist you in opponent are permissible. Also, from time to time, appellate judges need gentle reminders of the fetters restraining their impulse to reach the "right" result as they might see it, if they had been the trial judge or on the jury. Sometimes, the reminders of these constraints delivered by the Supreme Court of Canada to the appellate courts of the counsel to shape their arguments with those constraints in mind. superior court

2 134.(1)Unless otherwise provided, a court to which an appeal is taken may, any order or decision that ought to or could have been made by the make or tribunal appealed from; court (b) order a new trial; The above provision, which is broad, is circumscribed by s-s. 134 (4)(a): Unless otherwise provided, a court to which an appeal is taken may, in a (4) case, proper inferences of fact from the evidence, except that no inference shall be draw that is inconsistent with a finding that has not been set aside; drawn Section 134(4)(a) forces an appellate court-- and an appellant who seeks to persuade an appellate court to come to grips with the actual findings of a trial judge or jury, 4 R.S.O. 1990, c.c of record. Consequently, in Ontario, one must look initially to the Courts of Justice Act 4 to determine the ambit of the jurisdiction of both the Court of Appeal and the Divisional Court. This paper will not address the question of when an appeal lies to the Divisional Court, as opposed to the Court of Appeal; the answer to those jurisdictional questions can be readily found by reading ss. 6 and 19 of the Courts of Justice Act. The section of the statute which is most germane to this subject is s. 134, which defines the powers of both Court of Appeal and the Divisional Court when an appeal is properly before them. That section has several parts warranting discussion: (a) (c) make any other order or decision that is considered just. (a)..,to enable the court to determine the appeal,... instead of emphasizing other facts in the record to come to a different conclusion. In

3 issue of when an appellate court may set aside a For the purposes of this subject, s-ss.134(6) and (7) of the Courts of Justice Act are also significant: If a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice affects only part of the judgment or only trial process. Not every error made in the conduct of a trial, such as misdirection or non- See: H.L. Canada, 5 which considers The Court of AppealAct, 2000, S.S. 2000, c. C-42.1, s. 14. supra, that case, the defendant argued successfully in the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal and unsuccessfully In the Supreme Court of Canada that the Saskatchewan statute afforded scope for a hearing de novo and in broader powers on the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal than are conferred on other provincial conferred of appeal, including Ontario; Hodgkinson Sims, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 377, in which LaForest J. stated courts p.426, that an appellate court "simply has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings and conclusions at of fact of a trial judge..."; and, Waxman Waxman (2004), 186 O.A.C. 201 (C.A.) at other words, the provision suggests that appeals are to be reviews for error, not hearings de novo. 5 As discussed below, considerable jurisprudence addresses the finding of fact made from an inference. 134(6) A court to which an appeal is taken shall not direct a new trial unless some substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred. some of the parties, the appellate court may order a new trial in respect of only affected parties: a 134(7). While s-ss. 134 (1) and (4) speak to what an appellate court may do with the conclusions of a judge or jury, ss-s.134 (6) and (7) speak to appellate scrutiny of the direction in the charge to the jury, the admission of inadmissible evidence, the exclusion of admissible evidence, or the striking or retention of a jury notice, necessarily justifies a new trial. To obtain a new trial, appellants must show more than the existence of error. Rather, they must also demonstrate a reasonably substantial possibility that the result would have been different if the error had not occurred.

4 In rare circumstances, an appellate court may also exercise its power under s. 134(1)(c) speaking, as in this appeal, where there has been Generally that satisfies the court that had the jury been misdirection that only one verdict could be given by a properly such jury, acting reasonably and judicially, the court is instructed bound to order a new trial, but has the power, which it not to exercise, to direct that judgment be entered ought On an appeal from an award of damages for personal 119. the court may, if it considers it just, substitute its own injury, assessment of the damages. Previously, if an appellate court set aside a jury's assessment of damages, the case substitution by the appellate court. Now, the court will generally make its own assessment if it considers that the record allows it to do so. 60neil Marks(2001), 141 O.A.C. 201 (C.A.)at to decide a case even though a new trial would normally be ordered in similar circumstances. In Oneil Marks, Borins J. A. stated: directed it would not necessarily have reached the properly verdict, a new trial is ordered. However, there is same authority for the proposition that when an appellate ample is satisfied that all the facts are before it, and they are court notwithstanding the verdict of the jury. 6 Section 134 of the Courts of Justice Act is not the only provision in that statute that speaks to the powers of an appellate court. Section 119, which was enacted in Bill 69 in 1989, provides that: had to be sent back for re-assessment by another jury, unless the parties consented to

5 Jurisprudential Constraints on Appellate Review of a The scope of appellate intervention varies with the type of asserted error. a phrase first used by the Supreme Court of Canada in Since the term is Housen 7 Nikolaisen, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235, 2002 SCC 33 at 8-9. Stein 8 The Ship "Kathy K", [1976] 2 S.C.R. 802, Ritchie J., at 808. A CanLII search on April 30, Waxman Waxman (2004), 186 O.A.C. 201 (C.A.)at Trial Court's Conclusions Errors of Law If the appellant contends that the trial judge erred in law, the standard of review is "correctness." This standard is justified because the core function of appellate courts is to maintain legal consistency and ensure that the law develops in conformity with the demands of sound policy. 7 Review for Factual Error By contrast, the standard of review for factual findings is "palpable and overriding error," disjunctive, it is necessary to discuss the meaning of "palpable" separately from the meaning of "overriding." 9 A finding of fact can only be set aside if it is "palpably" wrong. This means that the appellate court must be able to "plainly identify" the flaw in the finding to show that it is "clearly" wrong and "unreasonable". To employ a metaphor, one must be able to "put a list of 102 Supreme Court of Canada cases containing the phrase, "palpable and overriding yielded error."

6 one's finger" on the error and be able to explain why it is error. In Waxman Waxman, the leading Ontario decision in the past decade on the standard of appellate review, Canada, Fish J. stressed that an appellate court may not re-weigh evidence to arrive at a finding of fact that it believes is more reasonable than a fact reasonably found by a whose existence is attested to directly by a witness or an exhibit. Fact-finding, however, almost always involves drawing inferences from evidence and other factual findings. defendant's sexual abuse of the plaintiff, he probably would not have developed alcoholism (which was a finding at issue in H.L.). Waxman lo Waxman, supra, at 305. H.L. 11 Canada (Attorney General), supra, at Doherty J.A. explains: "After Housen, appellate courts will not review findings of fact... by asking whether on the totality of the record, those findings are reasonable. ''1 In H.L. trial judge. 11 The "palpability" standard applies to both findings of "primary fact" and findings of fact that are arrived at through inference. A finding of primary fact (or "evidential fact") is one Inferences require the application of both reasoning and common experience. A classic example of a factual inference is a finding of causation- e.g., "but-for" the There are two broad reasons for rejecting any distinction between primary fact and inferences for the purposes of appellate review. Housen Nikolaisen, H. L. Canada and Waxman Waxman go to great lengths to repudiate the argument that, where credibility is not in issue, an appellate court is in as good a position to draw inferences as the trier of fact.

7 The first reason for rejecting the distinction is that appellate courts are simply not in as good a position as trial courts to draw inferences. Trial judges and juries are more familiar with all of the evidence than an appellate court can possibly be, because an evidence. Also, the basis of a valid inference may not be fully articulated in the reasons for judgment, and is invariably only sketched in the barest manner in the answers of a jury. In this respect, it should be noted that a trial judge is not required to address every piece of evidence adduced at trial. In most cases, this would be impossible. While many basis for deference. A finding of credibility can be set aside if it is palpably wrong e.g., where they are based on arbitrary or irrelevant considerations. 12 Nevertheless, a finding assessments are also grounded in numerous, Credibility unstated considerations which only the trial judge can often The considerations that go into an inference as to whether a or include sensory "data" picked up by the trier of fact from the demeanor of witnesses. Waxman 12 Waxman, supra, at 364. Waxman 13 Waxman, supra, at appeal necessarily focuses on a limited number of issues and a limited amount of statements in the cases justifying a highly deferential standard of review focus on the advantage trial courts enjoy in assessing credibility, this advantage, while real, is not the where the trial court overlooks self-contradictory testimony or other incontrovertible evidence that renders a witness' evidence manifestly wrong (or right) despite the impression the witness made in the box. Findings of credibility may also be set aside of credibility is especially difficult to reverse because, in essence, it is a special type of inference. As Doherty J.A. stated in Waxman Waxman: appreciate and calibrate. 13 witness should be believed However, the credibility of any witness also depends on the internal consistency and

8 an appellate an obligation on appellants to narrow the focus to specific facts, demonstrate that they see Toneguzzo-Norvell (Guardian ad litem of) Burnaby Hospital 15. This high degree of deference does not mean that a trial judge's decision to prefer the opinion of one where the opinion lacks reasonable foundation in the evidence, or is inconsistent with a As already noted, to vitiate a judgment, an error must be "overriding" as well as Housen 14 Nikolaisen, supra, at Toneguzzo-Norvell (Guardian ad litem of) 15 Bumaby Hospital, [1994] 1 S.C.R reasonableness of the witness' evidence, its relationship to other evidence and its congruency with the perceptions of the tries of fact as to how the world works. Credibility findings are probably the most complex inferences of all. Second, there are policy reasons for limiting appellate review of factual findings and for rejecting any distinction between findings of primary fact and inferences. If court is required to review the totality of the record to determine whether the factual inferences made by a trial judge are reasonable (the position of Bastarache J. in Housen in dissent), appeals would be interminable. Efficiency requires the imposition of are palpably wrong, and establish their central importance -i.e., to show "palpable and overriding error", as the majority in Housen held. Limiting appellate review is also justified by the need to protect the legitimacy of trial courts through a "presumption of fitness" and the need to discourage the number of appeals. 14 The "palpable error" test also extends to the acceptance or rejection of expert evidence: expert to that of another is immune from challenge. Accepting the opinion of an expert finding of primary fact, would be unreasonable. "palpable". In other words, the tainted finding must be central to the trial result, in the

9 sense that, if it cannot stand, the judgment must fall with it. 16 If an error is overriding, fact may hinge on credibility, which, in many cases, can only be assessed by actually nevertheless might be reasonably possible for another trial judge to reach the same An exhaustive definition of the kind of errors that qualify as palpable and overriding misapprehension of relevant evidence; the consideration of irrelevant evidence; the finding that had no basis in the evidence; and a finding based on an inference that is outside of even the generous ambit a Whether a finding is "speculation" is often a matter of controversy. An inference can legitimately be based on a sense and/or common experience. Waxman combination of evidence and the trier of fact's common However, the boundary between common sense -9- setting it aside may or may not result in the appellate court reaching a conclusion opposite to the factual conclusion reached at trial. This is because the appellate court may not be able to reach its own finding on the evidence. The proper determination of a seeing the witnesses. 1 In other cases, a new trial might be required because the determination turns on the totality of the evidence -i.e., even though the appellate court can "put its finger on" an error in the process by which the factual finding was made, it conclusion on the same evidence. 18 errors is not possible, but, with respect, list set out by Doherty J. A. in Peart Peel Regional Police Services Board is a very useful starting point: the failure to consider relevant evidence; within which there may be reasonable disagreement as to the inference to be drawn; that is, an inference that is speculation rather than legitimate inference. 19 Waxman see, e.g., Oneil Marks, supra. But Centenary Heath Centre (2005), 198 O.A.C. 349 (C.A.) at 86. Armstrong Peart Peel Regional Police Services Board (2006), 217 O.A.C. 269 (C.A.) at 158

10 "Ignoring evidence" requires a special caution The mere omission of mention of a reasons for judgment does not necessarily imply that the trial judge in the reasons will not necessarily mean that omissions appellate court has jurisdiction to review the evidence the at trial... [A]n omission is only a material error if it heard rise to the reasoned belief that the trial judge must gives forgotten, ignored or misconceived the evidence in a have that affected his conclusion. Without this reasoned way reasons for judgment may simply mean that the trial judge, correctly, did not think it was sufficiently weighty to mention. On the other hand, some assess the reasonableness of 2o Compare the majority and dissent in Aristorenas Comcare Health Services (2006), 83 O.R. (3d) 282 Waxman 22 Housen Nikolaisen, supra, at 1139; Van de Perre Edwards, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 1014, 2001 SCC 60 at 5. 1 R. 23 Sheppard, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869, Waxman Waxman, supra and speculation can be blurry. 20 Speculation can also occur when a trier of fact, after rejecting a witness' version of events, leaps to the conclusion that the opposite of what the witness testified to must be correct, without any positive evidence to support the inference. 21 piece of evidence in failed to take it into account: belief, the appellate court cannot reconsider the evidence 22 Silence on some evidence in evidence is so critical that failure to explain its rejection does amount to palpable and overriding error. This is because reasons for judgment must achieve a level of completeness and coherence to afford the losing party an intelligible reason for why s/he lost and provide an appellate court an opportunity to the conclusions. 23 For example, the failure to mention evidence on a central issue from IF.A.). Waxman, supra, at I]351.

11 a witness whose credibility was unchallenged has been held to constitute palpable and overriding error. A finding of mixed law and fact is simply the application of a legal standard to a fact or damages is similar to a finding of mixed law and fact because it is essentially a review for findings of mixed law and fact requires the appellant to identify a misapprehension of the legal standard. In that event, the error is more properly more detail below, that, to be reversible, the error must have resulted in a substantial Mandrake Management Consultants 24 Toronto Transit Commission (1993),102 D.L.R. (4th) 12 (Ont. at 37-40; Cyanamid of Canada Ltd. Bigelow Liptak of Canada Ltd. (1992), 99 D.L.R. (4th) 118 (Ont. C.A.) at 123. C.A.) Housen 25 Nikolaisen, supra, at Review of Findings of Mixed Law and Fact The "palpable and overriding error" test also applies to findings of "mixed law and fact." set of facts. The classic example of a finding of mixed law and fact is a determination of whether a defendant is negligent. As discussed below, the determination of an award of "judgment call", reversible only if demonstrably unreasonable. Although the standard of unreasonableness, an appellant can also succeed by showing that the error was really characterized as an error of law, reviewable on the correctness standard. 25 Review of Jury Verdicts and Assessments Is the standard of review any different for jury trials? In theory, the standard should be be the same. In a jury trial, the law applied by the court is set out in the charge to the jury and is reviewable on the correctness standard, subject to the proviso, discussed in

12 a standard of "palpable and overriding error" for findings of requiring made by either a trial judge or a jury reinforces the proper negligence established standard of review applicable to a finding of negligence by the jury. 26 [Emphasis added.] a awards of damages may only be set aside for palpable Jury overriding error. It is a long-held principle that "when on and proper direction the quantum is ascertained by a jury, the a between the figure at which they have arrived and disparity figure at which they could properly have arrived must, to any correction by a court of appeal, be even wider than justify the figure has been assessed by a judge sitting when 27 alone" Interference with a jury verdict, assessment of the quantum of damages, or Housen 26 Nikolaisen,supra, at 30. Young 27 Bella, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 108 at 30, quoting from Nance British Columbia Electric Railway -12- wrong or miscarriage of justice. As for findings of fact and findings of mixed law and fact made by a jury, Cory and lacobucci, JJ., writing for the majority in the Supreme Court of Canada in Housen Nikolaisen, said relationship between the appellate and trial court levels and accords with In Young Bella, a Supreme Court of Canada decision restoring a jury's assessment of damages, the court cited both Housen and H. L. Canada as determining the standard of review, even those two decisions reviewed judgments from bench trials. In practice, as opposed to theory, however, appellate courts give.even more deference to juries than to trial judges. In Young Bella, McLachlin C.J.C. and Binnie J. stated apportionment of damages according to fault is justified only in "exceptional" Co., [1951] A.C. 601 (P.C.), at p. 614.

13 principle has been laid down in many judgments of this Court to this The that the verdict of a jury will not be set aside as against the weight of effect, unless it is so plainly unreasonable and unjust as to satisfy the evidence that no jury reviewing the evidence as a whole and acting judicially Court The very nature of jury verdicts and assessments of damages throws up a significant hurdle into the path of an appellant. Jury answers are sparse; they identify the wrong Formulations of the standard of appellate review specifically pertaining to damages are Vieczorek Marcoccia 28 Gill, 2009 ONCA 13 at 29; Jones Niklaus (2008), 240 Oo.A..C. 43 (C.A.)at 43; Jack Kirkrude (2002), 155 O.A.C. (C.A.) at 3; Snushall Fulsang (2005), 78 O.R.(3d) 142 (C.A.) at 19; McCannell 29 McLean, [1937] S.C.R. 341, at p. 343 Cameron 3o Excelsior Life Insurance Co., [1981] 1 S.C.R. 138, Laskin C.J.C.142;.Koukounakis (1995), 23 O.R. (3d) 299 (C.A.), Doherty J.A. at 305-6; Stainrod Koukounakis 31 Stainrod, supra, at p. 305, quoting Nance British Columbia Electric Railway 3 D.L.R. 705,713 (J.C.P.C.-B.C.); Woelk Halvorson, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 430, 435-6; Graham Co.,[1951] (1990), 74 DoL.R. (4th) 1 (Ont. C.A.). Rourke -13- circumstances. 28 Likely, the most frequently quoted formulation of the test was set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1937 in McCannell McLean: could have reached it. 29 committed by the defendant in few words and assessments of damages are set out in bald amounts. The findings of fact supporting verdicts and assessments must be inferred from the answers and the evidence. Thus, in approaching a jury's assessment of damages, deference requires an appellate court to presume that the jury made every finding in the respondent's favour that was reasonably open to it on the evidence. 30 Application of the Standard of Review to Assessments of Damages essentially corollaries of the general principles discussed above. The most frequently quoted statement is that the appellant must establish that the award "is so inordinately high (or low) that it must be a wholly erroneous estimate of the damages." 31 In Piersma, Cory J.A. said that an award of non-pecuniary damages made by

14 Awards for past pecuniary loss (income and cost of care) require proof on a determine past events on the balance of probabilities and make quantification Non- Pecuniary General Damages Vieczorek 32 Piersma (1987), 58 O.R.(2d)583 (C.A.), Cory J.A., 589. Graham 33 Rourke (1990), 75 O.R. (2d) 622 (C.A.) a jury should only be set aside if it is "beyond the scope of anything that could be accepted as reasonable. ''32 Past Pecuniary Loss balance of probabilities. Review of such awards on the palpable and overriding error standard is no different than the review of other findings of fact. At first instance, the task is to judgments about them. On appellate review, the task is to determine whether the appellant can establish that the conclusion was unreasonable. Review of awards of non-pecuniary damages and awards for future pecuniary loss require further elaboration. An award of non-pecuniary general damages results from a two-step exercise. First, the trier of fact determines what injuries and impairments the plaintiff has suffered and the extent, if any, to which they are likely to persist into the future. Reviewing those conclusions on appeal is a matter of applying the palpable and overriding error test. 33 The second step is assigning an amount to the non-pecuniary loss. This step can be done by a trial judge or by a jury, with or without the guidance of the trial judge or

15 counsel for the parties. 34 If guidance is given in the charge to the jury, the trial judge's of Appeal often applies a rule of thumb enunciated in Howes Crosby: or too low by 50%, it concludes that the damages are high high or low and varies it accordingly inordinately establishing a Howes Crosby also holds that, while awards of non-pecuniary general damages should aim for consistency, they are not to be measured against the cap in the "trilogy." As the Court of Appeal recently stated in Sandhu Wellington Place Apartments upper limit for non-pecuniary damages in catastrophic The cases is not to be used as a scale against which non- injury to evaluate Harvinder's injuries solely on the inappropriate of some notional comparison with an imagined worst basis cases should achieve a degree of consistency and similar this kind of comparative analysis offers only uniformity, assistance. The assessment of non-pecuniary limited ultimately depends on the mix of factors peculiar to damages Courts of Justice Act, 34 s supra, Howes 3 Crosby (1984), 45 O.R. (2d) 449 (C.A.), MacKinnon A.C.J.O. at p. 459: 36 Sandhu Wellington Place Apartments 2008 ONCA 215, 291 D.L.R. (4th) 220, 234 O.A.C. 200 (C.A.) -15- instruction should be informed by reference to similar cases, bearing in mind that comparisons between cases are necessarily rough and can only result in range of reasonable values for the loss. When reviewing a jury assessment, the Court this Court, depending on the amount of damages, Normally the view that if it is of the opinion that the award is too takes claims for all other injuries are to be measured: pecuniary Howes Crosby [citation omitted] In other words, it is see case scenario. While awards for non-pecuniary damages in each particular plaintiff at 25.

16 and recovery is discounted by the percentage of possibility that the loss may not occur reviewing a damage assessment. It can interfere with that in only where the trial judge misapplied applicable assessment a wholly erroneous estimate of the damage suffered is omitted. 38 [Citations defendant was able to point to considerable evidence to show that there was a even if Graham 37 Rourke, supra; Andrews Grand & Toy AIberta Ltd. (1978), 83 D.L.R. (3d) 452 at pp [1978] 2 S.C.R. 229; Schrump Koot (1977), 18 O.R. (2d) 337 (C.A.), 8, 38 Graham Rourke, supra, at pp. -; -16- Future Pecuniary Loss At first instance, the standard of proof for this type of loss is "real and substantial risk" and/or by the chances that it might have occurred even if the tort had not been committed. 37 Doctrinally, the test for reviewing assessments of future loss on appeal is the same as for past loss. In the context of reviewing (and varying) such an assessment in Graham Rourke, Doherty J.A. stated: An appellate court must give due deference to the trial judge of law, or made a palpable and overriding error principles affected factual findings, or awarded an amount which which Practically, speaking, however, review of awards for future loss on factual grounds will be even more difficult because the exercise at first instance is inherently somewhat speculative. Nevertheless, as Graham Rourke demonstrates, the test can be met. There, the trial judge found that there was no evidence to support a contingency deduction from the awards for future loss of income and future care. On appeal, the substantial possibility that the plaintiff's pre-accident back condition would have recurred the motor vehicle accident at issue had not happened.

17 Are future pecuniary damage awards subject to review on the basis that, even though evidence exists to support them, the assessment is simply too high, unprecedented, and unfair to the defendant? This issue was raised recently in Marcoccia Gill, supra, an appeal of a jury assessment of damages for future care ($14 million) in a brain injury care and supervision. The Court of Appeal gave short shrift to the defendant's argument that the award was "way out of the park", noting that the appellant had conceded that an Apartments, also a had no the court rejected the proposition that the assessment of pecuniary damages mentioned by plaintiffs' counsel in her closing jury address. The Court of Appeal should never forget that the trade-off for the cap on Marcoccia 39 Gill, supra, at 31. Aberdeen 4o Zanatta, 2008 BCCA 420 (CanLII) at case. The award was premised on the proposition that the plaintiff, who was mobile but had severe cognitive, psychological, and emotional problems, would require constant assessment of $11 million would have been reasonable. The court held that it basis to interfere where the award rested on expert evidence properly adduced at trial. 39 Implicitly, is "subject to a tariff or comparison between plaintiffs", a proposition that was also recently rejected by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Aberdeen Zanatta. 4o The "simply too high" issue also lurked beneath the surface in Sandhu Wellington Place brain injury case. There, the defendant's central complaint on appeal was that the jury assessed future care at an amount higher than the highest amount dismissed the appeal, noting that the assessment was grounded in the evidence. Despite the argument's lack of success thus far, we can expect that unsuccessful defendants will continue to advance it in one form or another. Respondents' counsel non-pecuniary general damages in

18 the trilogy was affirmation that pecuniary loss, particularly the cost of future cane, for Process Errors and Trial Unfairness Review paper of this nature cannot encompass in any detail the subject of appellate review This on the basis of trial unfairness. Nevertheless, lawyers for respondents should keep on a wrong principle or are arbitrary and/or capricious and/or based on a palpable decision might be wrong, but it may not have caused a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice, for example, in Sandhu Wellington Place Apartments, the Court of Appeal held that, although the trial judge erred in refusing to qualify the defendant's only expert inconsistent with the evidence (including admissions by the defendant's employees) to a ground of appeal, as where the jury was erroneously instructed on a pivotal legal Andrews 41 Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd., supra, at pp Graham 42 Rourke, supra; Hamstra British Columbia Rugby Union, [1997] S.C.R. 1092; MacDonald v Chalmers Estate, 2008 ONCA 889 ate 5-7. Sandhu 43 Wellington Place Apartments,supra, at should be fully compensated., 1 several considerations top of mind. First, most evidentiary rulings and rulings as to trial process are discretionary and, as such, are entitled to deference unless they are based misapprehension of the factual circumstances. ' 2 Thus, even if the impugned decision can be criticized, it may still be afforded deference. Second, as noted above, such a on liability, his qualifications were so weak and his proposed evidence was so that, even if he had been heard, his evidence could not have affected the jury's verdict. 43 Third, appellants may complain about matters on appeal that were not objected to at trial because of strategic considerations. The classic example of this is failure to object to the charge to the jury, but there are others, such as the failure to object to the admission of evidence. While failure to object at trial is not necessarily fatal

19 principle or the conduct of successful trial counsel was egregious, silence at trial is a appellant's counsel is to show that, within that focus, the trial court made errors of law or effort to devote to defending a particular aspect of the reasons for judgment, or a ruling Brochu 44 Pond (2002), 62 O.R. (3d) 722 (C.A.), Cronk J.A. at 66; Mizzi Hopkins 2003), 64 O.R. 365 (C.A.) Cronk J.A. at 53-9; Abdallah V. Snopek, 2008 CanLII 6983 (ON S.C.D.C.).. (3d) -19- significant hurdle to an appellant that the respondent should emphasize, if relevant. 44 Conclusion: A Practical Note for Respondent's Counsel To have any hope of success, an appellant must narrow the focus of the case to one or a few findings of fact, or occurrences during the course of the trial. The job of unreasonable findings of fact that were pivotal to the entire case, or that the trial was tainted by substantial unfairness. Since no case is perfect (the most perfect cases tend to settle before trial), appellants will usually be able to find something to create an initial doubt in the minds of appellate judges about the soundness of the judgment. In some appeals, the appellant can only do this by misstating or mischaracterizing facts or advancing a patently incorrect formulation of the law. Such cases are easy for respondents' counsel. The other type of easy case is where the appellant ignores the standard of review and attempts to convince the court to re-try the case. The tougher cases are the ones where an error has occurred. Bearing in mind that factums and oral argument are subject to length limits (oral argument for the respondent is usually less than for the appellant), respondent's counsel must decide how much made during the course of trial, as opposed to how much should be devoted to

20 distance themselves from the case if they decide to do the appeal themselves some significant on appeal. Indeed, sometimes counsel can rue some of those victories as ingredients of success. 20 minimizing its significance. Sometimes, the indefensible must be recognized as such. Indeed, sometimes, the respondent is well advised to acknowledge that a part of the award cannot stand and aim to preserve what can be defended. Putting a case on appeal into the best possible requires counsel to select the most important facts, package them concisely, yet vividly, and link them efficiently to both the overall factual context and the applicable legal principles. It also requires trial counsel to of the hard fought skirmishes won along the route to victory at trial may not be they may potentially lead to reversal on appeal. Finally, counsel should recognize that, while appellate judges are usually sympathetic to the plight of injured plaintiffs, their duty requires them to do justice to both plaintiffs and defendants. Thus, while your case on appeal should be argued passionately, appeals to sympathy may highlight weaknesses in your case. Getting the facts right, putting them in to the right context, advancing the right law, and getting quickly to the point are the C: Documents and Settings kfs My Documents Recovered OTLA.doc

****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the

****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date 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 information

LAW OF CAUSATION: A REVIEW AND THE AN UPDATE. By: LLP. N6A4G4 Phone: 519.640.6313. Presented in London on March 9, 2004. Andrew C. Murray.

LAW OF CAUSATION: A REVIEW AND THE AN UPDATE. By: LLP. N6A4G4 Phone: 519.640.6313. Presented in London on March 9, 2004. Andrew C. Murray. LAW OF CAUSATION: A REVIEW THE AN UPDATE AND at the Ontario Bar Association Conference Presented in London on March 9, 2004 held & Solicitors Barristers Box 2335 PO Andrew C. Murray By: LLP Lerners London

More information

GLOSSARY OF SELECTED LEGAL TERMS

GLOSSARY OF SELECTED LEGAL TERMS GLOSSARY OF SELECTED LEGAL TERMS Sources: US Courts : http://www.uscourts.gov/library/glossary.html New York State Unified Court System: http://www.nycourts.gov/lawlibraries/glossary.shtml Acquittal A

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Toor v. Harding, 2013 BCSC 1202 Amrit Toor and Intech Engineering Ltd. Date: 20130705 Docket: S125365 Registry: Vancouver Plaintiffs Thomas

More information

No. 1-10-0602 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

No. 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 information

Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the

Reports 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 information

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 03-CV-1445. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (CA-3748-02)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 03-CV-1445. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (CA-3748-02) Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections

More information

CASE COMMENT. by Craig Gillespie and Bottom Line Research

CASE COMMENT. by Craig Gillespie and Bottom Line Research CASE COMMENT by Craig Gillespie and Bottom Line Research On June 29, 2012 the Supreme Court of Canada released Clements v. Clements, [2012] 7 W.W.R. 217, 2012 SCC 32, its latest in a series of judgements

More information

PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE ACTIONS EFFECTIVE EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE

PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE ACTIONS EFFECTIVE EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE ACTIONS EFFECTIVE EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE ) - \ These materials were prepared by Jeffrey Scott of.jeffreyd. Scott Legal Professional Corporation,. Regina, Saskatch13wan for the

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT Filed 10/11/13 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT ED AGUILAR, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. B238853 (Los Angeles County

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII. J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT United States District Judge

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII. J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT United States District Judge IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII August 8, 2011 J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT United States District Judge GENERAL FEDERAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES INDEX 1 DUTY OF JUDGE 2

More information

AUTOMART LIMITED V. WAQA ROKOTUINASAU - ERCA NO. 9 OF 2012 JUDGMENT

AUTOMART LIMITED V. WAQA ROKOTUINASAU - ERCA NO. 9 OF 2012 JUDGMENT IN THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COURT AT SUVA APPELLATE JURISDICTION CASE NUMBER: ERCA NO. 09 OF 2012 BETWEEN: AUTOMART LIMITED APPELLANT AND: WAQA ROKOTUINASAU RESPONDENT Appearances: Ms. Drova for the Appellant.

More information

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA TEBEILA INSTITUTE OF LEADERSHIP, EDUCATION, GOVERNANCE, AND TRAINING

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA TEBEILA INSTITUTE OF LEADERSHIP, EDUCATION, GOVERNANCE, AND TRAINING CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: Case CCT 155/14 TEBEILA INSTITUTE OF LEADERSHIP, EDUCATION, GOVERNANCE, AND TRAINING Applicant and LIMPOPO COLLEGE OF NURSING MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE

More information

JURY INSTRUCTIONS. 2.4 Willful Maintenance of Monopoly Power

JURY INSTRUCTIONS. 2.4 Willful Maintenance of Monopoly Power JURY INSTRUCTIONS PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS 1. ANTITRUST CLAIMS 2. Elements of Monopoly Claim 2.1 Definition of Monopoly Power 2.2 Relevant Market 2.3 Existence of Monopoly Power 2.4 Willful Maintenance

More information

Introduction Page to the Appellant s PDF Factum:

Introduction Page to the Appellant s PDF Factum: Introduction Page to the Appellant s PDF Factum: Note: When you bind your factum, all pages (except for the cover and index) starting with your chronology, should always be on the left-hand side. The righthand

More information

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO Filed 8/27/14 Tesser Ruttenberg etc. v. Forever Entertainment CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying

More information

HARVEY KRUSE, P.C. BAD FAITH

HARVEY KRUSE, P.C. BAD FAITH HARVEY KRUSE, P.C. BAD FAITH Prepared By: Michael F. Schmidt P25213 HARVEY KRUSE, P.C. 1050 Wilshire Drive, Suite 320 Troy, MI 48084 (248) 649-7800 Fax (248) 649-2316 A. INTRODUCTION Subject to specific

More information

litigating in Canada: a brief guide for U.S. clients

litigating in Canada: a brief guide for U.S. clients litigating in Canada: a brief guide for U.S. clients litigating in Canada: a brief guide for U.S. clients executive summary Despite the great deal the United States and Canada share in common, in many

More information

S.116 Of The Courts of Justice Act Can Defendants Impose A Structured Settlement on the Plaintiff? Robert Roth

S.116 Of The Courts of Justice Act Can Defendants Impose A Structured Settlement on the Plaintiff? Robert Roth S.116 Of The Courts of Justice Act Can Defendants Impose A Structured Settlement on the Plaintiff? Robert Roth Historically, at common law, a plaintiff was not obliged to accept a structured settlement,

More information

2015 IL App (3d) 140820-U. Order filed July 17, 2015 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2015

2015 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 information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CRIMINAL ACTION H-00-0000 DEFENDANT(S) JURY INSTRUCTIONS I. General A. Introduction Members of the Jury:

More information

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION FLEMINGTON SUPPLY CO., INC., v. Plaintiff-Appellant, NELSON ENTERPRISES, and Defendant, THE FRANK MCBRIDE CO., INC., NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Defendant-Respondent.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: KIRK A. HORN Mandel Pollack & Horn, P.C. Carmel, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: JOHN R. OBENCHAIN BRIAN M. KUBICKI Jones Obenchain, LLP South Bend, Indiana IN

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE Filed 9/19/13 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE LAS VEGAS LAND AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,

More information

APPEALS IN THE PERSONAL INJURY CONTEXT

APPEALS IN THE PERSONAL INJURY CONTEXT at The Middlesex Law Association's Presented Annual Personal Injury Conference Sixth by: Andrew C. Murray Submitted LLP Lerners & Solicitors Barristers Box 2335 PO APPEALS IN THE PERSONAL INJURY CONTEXT

More information

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE COURT FILE NO.: CV-07-0159-00B1 DATE: October 08, 2009 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: 1013952 ONTARIO INC., operating as the No one attending for Plaintiff Silverado Restaurant and Nightclub

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JAMES D. FOWLER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No.: 08-cv-2785 ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Judge Robert M. Dow,

More information

The discovery principle and limitation of actions for solicitor s negligence: Ferrara v. Lorenzetti, Wolfe Barristers and Solicitors (Ont. C.

The discovery principle and limitation of actions for solicitor s negligence: Ferrara v. Lorenzetti, Wolfe Barristers and Solicitors (Ont. C. February 2013 Civil Litigation Section The discovery principle and limitation of actions for solicitor s negligence: Ferrara v. Lorenzetti, Wolfe Barristers and Solicitors (Ont. C.A) Antonin Pribetic*

More information

UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 1450. September Term, 2013

UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 1450. September Term, 2013 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1450 September Term, 2013 BRANDON ALSUP, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS PARENTS AND NEXT FRIENDS, SARAH RILEY AND REGINALD ALSUP v. UNIVERSITY OF

More information

OPENING INSTRUCTIONS

OPENING INSTRUCTIONS OPENING INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Jury: Respective Roles of Jurors and Judge You ve been chosen as jurors for this case, and you ve taken an oath to decide the facts fairly. As we begin the trial, I

More information

- 2 - Your appeal will follow these steps:

- 2 - Your appeal will follow these steps: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT YOUR APPEAL AND YOUR LAWYER A Guide Prepared by the Office of the Appellate Defender 1. WHO IS MY LAWYER? Your lawyer s name is on the notice that came with this guide. The

More information

TRINITY V. COWAN: MENTAL ANGUISH IS NOT BODILY INJURY AND AN INTENTIONAL TORT IS NOT AN ACCIDENT

TRINITY V. COWAN: MENTAL ANGUISH IS NOT BODILY INJURY AND AN INTENTIONAL TORT IS NOT AN ACCIDENT TRINITY V. COWAN: MENTAL ANGUISH IS NOT BODILY INJURY AND AN INTENTIONAL TORT IS NOT AN ACCIDENT By David Plaut Hanna & Plaut, L.L.P. Attorneys at Law 106 E. 6th Street, Suite 600 Austin, Texas 78701 Phone

More information

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS MICHAELA WARD, v. Appellant, LINDA THERET, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PRINCIPAL OF MCKINNEY NORTH HIGH SCHOOL, Appellee. No. 08-08-00143-CV Appeal from

More information

Pg. 01 French v Carter Lemon Camerons LLP

Pg. 01 French v Carter Lemon Camerons LLP Contents French v Carter Lemon Camerons LLP 1 Excelerate Technology Limited v Cumberbatch and Others 3 Downing v Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust 5 Yeo v Times Newspapers Limited

More information

NEGOTIATION AND SETTLEMENT TECHNIQUES DURING TRIAL. It is trite, but none the less true, that success at anything during trial is highly

NEGOTIATION AND SETTLEMENT TECHNIQUES DURING TRIAL. It is trite, but none the less true, that success at anything during trial is highly NEGOTIATION AND SETTLEMENT TECHNIQUES DURING TRIAL It is trite, but none the less true, that success at anything during trial is highly dependent on preparation. In the first place, it is preparation that

More information

CAR ACCIDENT GUIDE TABLE OF CONTENTS

CAR ACCIDENT GUIDE TABLE OF CONTENTS CAR ACCIDENT GUIDE TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction... 1 First Step... 1 Finding and Hiring a Lawyer... 1 Financial Arrangements... 2 Your Claim... 3 Documenting Your Claim... 5 Parties to the Claim...

More information

GOOD, THE BAD FAITH AND THE UGLY

GOOD, THE BAD FAITH AND THE UGLY P. Wheeler Neil & Associates LLP Lerner Adelaide Street West 130 2400 Suite Box 95 P.O. ON Toronto, No. (416)601-2384 Tel. No. (416) 867-9192 Fax THE BILL 59 ACCIDENT BENEFITS CLAIM: SETTLING GOOD, THE

More information

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. 12-408

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. 12-408 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. 12-408 JAMES K. MEADOR V. APPELLANT T O T A L C O M P L I A N C E CONSULTANTS, INC., AND BILL MEDLEY APPELLEES Opinion Delivered January 31, 2013 APPEAL FROM THE BENTON COUNTY

More information

Offering Defense Witnesses to New York Grand Juries. Your client has just been held for the action of the Grand Jury. Although you

Offering Defense Witnesses to New York Grand Juries. Your client has just been held for the action of the Grand Jury. Although you Offering Defense Witnesses to New York Grand Juries By: Mark M. Baker 1 Your client has just been held for the action of the Grand Jury. Although you have a valid defense, you do not want your client to

More information

THE 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 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 information

Reed Armstrong Quarterly

Reed Armstrong Quarterly Reed Armstrong Quarterly January 2009 http://www.reedarmstrong.com/default.asp Contributors: William B. Starnes II Tori L. Cox IN THIS ISSUE: Joint and Several Liability The Fault of Settled Tortfeasors

More information

NO. COA14-695 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 31 December 2014. Appeal by plaintiff from order entered 12 March 2014 by

NO. COA14-695 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 31 December 2014. Appeal by plaintiff from order entered 12 March 2014 by BETTY D. WRIGHT, Plaintiff v. NO. COA14-695 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 31 December 2014 Vance County No. 13 CVS 782 WAKEMED also known as WAKE COUNTY HOSPITAL SYSTEM, INC., GURVINDER SINGH

More information

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 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 information

Causation in Tort Since Resurfice: Overview

Causation in Tort Since Resurfice: Overview CAUSATION IN TORT AFTER RESURFICE PAPER 1.2 Causation in Tort Since Resurfice: Overview These materials were prepared by David Cheifetz of Bennett Best Burn, LLP, Vancouver, BC, for the Continuing Legal

More information

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A13-1110. Faron L. Clark, Respondent, vs. Sheri Connor, et al., Defendants, Vydell Jones, Appellant.

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A13-1110. Faron L. Clark, Respondent, vs. Sheri Connor, et al., Defendants, Vydell Jones, Appellant. STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A13-1110 Faron L. Clark, Respondent, vs. Sheri Connor, et al., Defendants, Vydell Jones, Appellant. Filed January 21, 2014 Affirmed Hooten, Judge Cass County District

More information

2013 PA Super 29. APPEAL OF: THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY No. 1502 EDA 2012

2013 PA Super 29. APPEAL OF: THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY No. 1502 EDA 2012 2013 PA Super 29 PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION INSURANCE COMPANY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY AND JOHN DOE A APPEAL OF: THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

More information

2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U. Order filed September 23, 2013 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2013

2013 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 information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ALEC DEMOPOLIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED April 16, 2015 v No. 320099 Macomb Circuit Court MAURICE R. JONES, LC No. 2012-000488-NO Defendant, and ALEXANDER V. LYZOHUB,

More information

COURT S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY (CIVIL) SEXUAL HARASSMENT. I will now explain to you the rules of law that you must follow and apply in

COURT S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY (CIVIL) SEXUAL HARASSMENT. I will now explain to you the rules of law that you must follow and apply in IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA KEYBOARD()DIVISION KEYBOARD(), Plaintiff, v. KEYBOARD(), Defendants. ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] CV Members of the Jury: COURT S INSTRUCTIONS

More information

FILED December 15, 2015 Carla Bender 4 th District Appellate Court, IL

FILED 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 information

Re Sunforest Investment Corp et al. and Ontario New Home Warranty Program *

Re Sunforest Investment Corp et al. and Ontario New Home Warranty Program * Re Sunforest Investment Corp et al. and Ontario New Home Warranty Program * [Indexed as: Sunforest Investment Corp. v. Ontario New Home Warranty Program] 32 O.R. (3d) 59 [1997] O.J. No. 128 Court File

More information

IN COURT OF APPEALS. DECISION DATED AND FILED February 24, 2015. Appeal No. 2014AP657 DISTRICT I HUPY & ABRAHAM, S.C.,

IN COURT OF APPEALS. DECISION DATED AND FILED February 24, 2015. Appeal No. 2014AP657 DISTRICT I HUPY & ABRAHAM, S.C., COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED February 24, 2015 Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear

More information

CAN A PLEADING BE AMENDED BECAUSE OF A LAWYER S MISTAKE?

CAN A PLEADING BE AMENDED BECAUSE OF A LAWYER S MISTAKE? 1 CAN A PLEADING BE AMENDED BECAUSE OF A LAWYER S MISTAKE? By Bill McNally and Bottom Line Research & Communications 1 A lawyer frequently finds him or herself in the position where he or she has made

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 99,491. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellant, JILL POWELL, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 99,491. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellant, JILL POWELL, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 99,491 KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellant, v. JILL POWELL, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. Under the Kansas Act for Judicial Review and Civil Enforcement

More information

IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion)

IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion) IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion) SIMMONS V. PRECAST HAULERS NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT

More information

****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the

****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date 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 information

COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION

COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION 2012 WI APP 54 Case No.: 2011AP414 Complete Title of Case: CINDY HORAK, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF GEORGE BENZINGER, V. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

More information

CREATING & DEVELOPING WINNING THEMES & ARGUMENTS By: Ervin A. Gonzalez

CREATING & DEVELOPING WINNING THEMES & ARGUMENTS By: Ervin A. Gonzalez CREATING & DEVELOPING WINNING THEMES & ARGUMENTS By: Ervin A. Gonzalez I. INTRODUCTION A winning trial attorney recognizes that to reach the goal of a successful verdict, you must first develop a plan

More information

Trial Practice and Procedure WILLIAM VEEN

Trial Practice and Procedure WILLIAM VEEN Trial Practice and Procedure www.plaintiffmagazine.com Annuity costs don t equal damages Caution: Calculating the present value of future damages by using the cost of an annuity can be injurious to your

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ROBERT D. MAAS Doninger Tuohy & Bailey LLP Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: THEODORE L. STACY Valparaiso, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. Case Nos. 06-2262 and 06-2384 CON-WAY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC. Appellant No.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. Case Nos. 06-2262 and 06-2384 CON-WAY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC. Appellant No. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Case Nos. 06-2262 and 06-2384 NOT PRECEDENTIAL CON-WAY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., Appellant No. 06-2262 v. REGSCAN, INC. CON-WAY TRANSPORTATION

More information

STATE BOARD OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION 270 Peachtree Street, NW Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1299 (404) 656-2930 www.sbwc.georgia.gov STATEMENT OF THE CASE

STATE BOARD OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION 270 Peachtree Street, NW Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1299 (404) 656-2930 www.sbwc.georgia.gov STATEMENT OF THE CASE 2011031543 Trial STATE BOARD OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION 270 Peachtree Street, NW Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1299 (404) 656-2930 www.sbwc.georgia.gov A hearing was held on June 11, 2013, to determine the Employee

More information

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE Filed 10/7/13 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE LARS ROULAND et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. PACIFIC SPECIALTY

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Filed 12/3/14 Backflip Software v. Cisco Systems CA6 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

More information

NO. COA10-193 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 2 November 2010. Appeal by Respondents from orders entered 14 September 2009 by

NO. COA10-193 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 2 November 2010. Appeal by Respondents from orders entered 14 September 2009 by NO. COA10-193 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 2 November 2010 CARL B. KINGSTON, Petitioner, v. Rockingham County No. 09 CVS 1286 LYON CONSTRUCTION, INC., and PMA INSURANCE GROUP, Respondents. Appeal

More information

THE COURT: You have been selected and sworn to determine the facts and

THE COURT: You have been selected and sworn to determine the facts and 1 THE COURT: You have been selected and sworn to determine the facts and render a verdict in the case of the Commonwealth / 1 of Pennsylvania versus Robert Greene, who is charged with one count of robbery,

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS BUDDY JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED August 20, 1999 and NANCY JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v JAMES K. FETT and MUTH & FETT, P.C., No. 207351 Washtenaw Circuit Court

More information

Cardelli Lanfear P.C.

Cardelli Lanfear P.C. Michigan Prepared by Cardelli Lanfear P.C. 322 West Lincoln Royal Oak, MI 48067 Tel: 248.850.2179 Fax: 248.544.1191 1. Introduction History of Tort Reform in Michigan Michigan was one of the first states

More information

Assume that the following clause was included in the retainer agreement between SK Firm LLP and the Corporation (the Relieving Clause ):

Assume that the following clause was included in the retainer agreement between SK Firm LLP and the Corporation (the Relieving Clause ): ETHICAL SCENARIO #3 I. FACT PATTERN A Saskatchewan law firm ( SK Firm LLP ) acts on behalf of an out of province (e.g. national) corporation (the Corporation ). SK Firm LLP s role has been solely to file

More information

CHAPTER 16 THIRD PARTY / OUT-OF-PROVINCE CLAIMS

CHAPTER 16 THIRD PARTY / OUT-OF-PROVINCE CLAIMS CHAPTER 16 THIRD PARTY / OUT-OF-PROVINCE CLAIMS #110.00 INTRODUCTION A worker who suffers injury or disease as a result of employment may be entitled to compensation from sources other than the Workers

More information

Public Service Labour Relations Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, s. 2, ss. 208 214, 215 219, 220 232.

Public Service Labour Relations Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, s. 2, ss. 208 214, 215 219, 220 232. CITATION: CANADA (ATTORNEY GENERAL) V. CANADIAN MERCHANT SERVICE GUILD, 2009 FC 344, [2010] 2 F.C.R. 282 T-1200-08 Attorney General of Canada (Applicant) v. Canadian Merchant Service Guild (Respondent)

More information

This is the author s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for publication in the following source:

This is the author s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for publication in the following source: This is the author s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for publication in the following source: Stickley, Amanda P. (2012) Long term exposure to asbestos satisfies test for causation. Queensland

More information

UNDERSTANDING THE WORKERS COMPENSATION SYSTEM ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES

UNDERSTANDING THE WORKERS COMPENSATION SYSTEM ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES UNDERSTANDING THE WORKERS COMPENSATION SYSTEM ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES Presented By: Sonia Lanteigne and Michael McGovern Legal Counsel, WorkSafeNB October 8, 2015 TODAY S AGENDA History of workers

More information

ORDER MO-2114 Appeal MA-060192-1 York Regional Police Services Board

ORDER MO-2114 Appeal MA-060192-1 York Regional Police Services Board ORDER MO-2114 Appeal MA-060192-1 York Regional Police Services Board Tribunal Services Department Services de tribunal administratif 2 Bloor Street East 2, rue Bloor Est Suite 1400 Bureau 1400 Toronto,

More information

A PRIMER REGARDING CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

A PRIMER REGARDING CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE A PRIMER REGARDING CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE By Stuart Ross and Bottom Line Research & Communications 1 Introduction We all deal with allegations of contributory negligence in response to the claims of a

More information

CITATION: Catholic Children s Aid Society of Toronto v. N.B.R., 2013 ONSC 1965 COURT FILE NO.: FS-12-018222 DATE: 2013/04/03

CITATION: Catholic Children s Aid Society of Toronto v. N.B.R., 2013 ONSC 1965 COURT FILE NO.: FS-12-018222 DATE: 2013/04/03 CITATION: Catholic Children s Aid Society of Toronto v. N.B.R., 2013 ONSC 1965 COURT FILE NO.: FS-12-018222 DATE: 2013/04/03 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: Catholic Children s Aid Society of Toronto

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE, AT JACKSON. July 13, 1999 INTEGON INDEMNITY ) Shelby County Chancery Court

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE, AT JACKSON. July 13, 1999 INTEGON INDEMNITY ) Shelby County Chancery Court IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE, AT JACKSON FILED July 13, 1999 INTEGON INDEMNITY Shelby County Chancery Court CORPORATION, No. 108770-1 R.D. Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk Plaintiff/Appellant.

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Richard v. British Columbia, 2014 BCSC 1290 William Joseph Richard and W.H.M. Date: 20140714 Docket: S024338 Registry: Vancouver Plaintiffs

More information

Random Drug and Alcohol Testing in the Workplace: Balancing Employee Privacy Interests with Workplace Safety

Random Drug and Alcohol Testing in the Workplace: Balancing Employee Privacy Interests with Workplace Safety QUEEN S UNIVERSITY IRC 2013 Queen s University IRC. This paper may not be copied, republished, distributed, transmitted or converted, in any form or by any means, electronic or otherwise, without the prior

More information

[Cite as Rogers v. Dayton, 118 Ohio St.3d 299, 2008-Ohio-2336.]

[Cite as Rogers v. Dayton, 118 Ohio St.3d 299, 2008-Ohio-2336.] [Cite as Rogers v. Dayton, 118 Ohio St.3d 299, 2008-Ohio-2336.] ROGERS v. CITY OF DAYTON ET AL., APPELLEES; STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., APPELLANT. [Cite as Rogers v. Dayton, 118 Ohio St.3d

More information

WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL Appellant. COLIN JAMES DALLAS Respondent. French, Winkelmann and Asher JJ

WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL Appellant. COLIN JAMES DALLAS Respondent. French, Winkelmann and Asher JJ IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA148/2014 [2015] NZCA 126 BETWEEN AND WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL Appellant COLIN JAMES DALLAS Respondent Court: Counsel: French, Winkelmann and Asher JJ D J Heaney QC

More information

****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the

****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date 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 information

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc KENNETH SUNDERMEYER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR ELVA ELIZABETH SUNDERMEYER, DECEASED, Appellant, v. SC89318 SSM REGIONAL HEALTH SERVICES D/B/A VILLA

More information

Managing 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. 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 information

Chapter 6B STATE ELIGIBILITY GUIDELINES. Last Amended: 1 July 2006. Manual of Legal Aid

Chapter 6B STATE ELIGIBILITY GUIDELINES. Last Amended: 1 July 2006. Manual of Legal Aid Chapter 6B STATE ELIGIBILITY GUIDELINES Last Amended: 1 July 2006 Manual of Legal Aid TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 6B - STATE ELIGIBILITY GUIDELINES GENERAL...3 PROVISION OF LEGAL ASSISTANCE...3 GENERAL GUIDELINES

More information

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 07-348 ************

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 07-348 ************ STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 07-348 LESTER BLACKMAN, ET AL. VERSUS BROOKSHIRE GROCERY COMPANY ************ APPEAL FROM THE CITY COURT OF ALEXANDRIA, PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 103,325,

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Zurich Insurance Company v. Chubb Insurance Company of Canada, 2014 ONCA 400 DATE: 20140515 DOCKET: C57553 BETWEEN Juriansz, Pepall and Pardu JJ.A. Zurich Insurance

More information

The Victims of Interpersonal Violence Act

The Victims of Interpersonal Violence Act 1 VICTIMS OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE c. V-6.02 The Victims of Interpersonal Violence Act being Chapter V-6.02 of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1994 (effective February 1, 1995) as amended by the Statutes

More information

Present: Weisberger, C.J., Lederberg, Bourcier, and Flanders, JJ. O P I N I O N

Present: Weisberger, C.J., Lederberg, Bourcier, and Flanders, JJ. O P I N I O N Supreme Court No. 99-556-Appeal. (WC 97-56) Irene L. Kenny v. Barry Wepman, M.D. Present Weisberger, C.J., Lederberg, Bourcier, and Flanders, JJ. O P I N I O N PER CURIAM. The defendant, Barry Wepman,

More information

2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U. No. 1-14-1985 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U. No. 1-14-1985 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U No. 1-14-1985 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).

More information

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014). This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A14-1331 Taras Lendzyk, Respondent, vs. Laura Lee

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 : : : : : : : : : :

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 : : : : : : : : : : NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 TANESHA CARTER, v. Appellant PEERLESS INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 684 EDA 2014 Appeal from

More information

ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION GUIDELINES WITH LITIGATION IN MIND

ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION GUIDELINES WITH LITIGATION IN MIND ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION GUIDELINES WITH LITIGATION IN MIND Introduction The purpose of this paper is to alert the reader to concepts used in the defense of construction related lawsuits and to suggest how

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO Filed 11/5/13 Mann v. Hernandez CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified

More information

In the Court of Appeal of Alberta

In the Court of Appeal of Alberta In the Court of Appeal of Alberta Citation: Dickson v. Poon Estate, 1982 ABCA 112 Between: Matthew C. Dickson, Diana Davidson and the City of Edmonton - and - Johnny Poon, executor of the estate of Joseph

More information

-vs- No. 89-261 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Respondent,

-vs- No. 89-261 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Respondent, No. 89-261 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1990 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, -vs- Plaintiff and Respondent, THE ESTATE OF GARY NELSON BRAUN, Deceased, and CHESTER V. BRAUN,

More information

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

NOT 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 information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JAMES HENDRICK, v Plaintiff-Appellant, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, UNPUBLISHED May 24, 2007 No. 275318 Montcalm Circuit Court LC No. 06-007975-NI

More information

The Last Word on Causation From. the Supreme Court of Canada (Maybe?) Stephen R. Moore Blaney McMurtry LLP smoore@blaney.com

The Last Word on Causation From. the Supreme Court of Canada (Maybe?) Stephen R. Moore Blaney McMurtry LLP smoore@blaney.com The Last Word on Causation From the Supreme Court of Canada (Maybe?) Stephen R. Moore Blaney McMurtry LLP smoore@blaney.com The Last Word on Causation From the Supreme Court of Canada (Maybe?) Introduction

More information

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, ROY MATTHEW SOVINE, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 14-0094

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, ROY MATTHEW SOVINE, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 14-0094 NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION

More information