Use of criminal convictions in subsequent civil trials
|
|
- Griselda Day
- 8 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Evidence Use of criminal convictions in subsequent civil trials By Brian S. Kabateck and Shant A. Karnikian A tortfeasor s acts giving rise to a personal injury lawsuit may also be the basis for criminal charges. As a common example, a driver of a vehicle who hits a pedestrian may face both civil and criminal consequences, depending on the facts specific to the accident. Consider this hypothetical: A pedestrian is walking on the edge of a rural road when a vehicle, traveling in the same direction as the pedestrian, slightly swerves and strikes the pedestrian. The pedestrian is killed instantly. The driver of the vehicle is not under the influence or engaging in any other unlawful conduct. The driver is, however, charged with misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter, in violation of Penal Code Section 192(c)(2). 1 The criminal case proceeds to trial, during which the defense attorney argues that the pedestrian Brian S. Kabateck is managing partner of Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP in Los Angeles. He represents victims in mass torts litigation, class actions, insurance bad faith, personal injury, and wrongful death litigation. He has been named one of the 100 most influential plaintiff lawyers in America, and a California Lawyer Attorney of the Year. He is a former president of CAOC. Shant A. Karnikian is an associate with Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP in Los Angeles. His practice focuses on consumer class actions and mass torts litigation. contributed to his or her own death by wearing dark clothes, walking in the road, and walking in the wrong direction. The jury rejects the argument and finds the driver guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter. The jury instructions used in the criminal trial require a jury to consider whether the defendant committed the otherwise lawful act with ordinary negligence. (Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction ( CALCRIM ) 593.) Subsequently, the victim s family files a wrongful death suit against the driver of the vehicle. 2 The question now becomes: How can the criminal conviction be used to the plaintiffs advantage in the subsequent civil case? This article explores three potential uses of the criminal conviction in a subsequent civil case: 1. Whether the conviction is admissible in the civil trial; 2. Whether the conviction can be used to establish defendant s liability; and 3. Whether the conviction precludes the defendant from raising the issue of contributory negligence in the civil trial. Admissibility of the criminal conviction Criminal convictions are considered hearsay and are therefore generally inadmissible. However, Evidence Code Section 1300 creates an exception for convictions of a crime punishable as a felony when the conviction is being offered in a subsequent civil case to prove a fact determined as part of the conviction. It is important to note that Evidence Code Section 1300 only applies to criminal convictions for crimes punishable as a felony. In our hypothetical scenario here, the driver was convicted of vehicular manslaughter in violation of Penal Code Section 192(c)(2), punishable by up to a year in jail, and thus a misdemeanor. Accordingly, the hearsay exception for felony convictions would not apply to this scenario, and evidence of the conviction would be excluded from the civil trial. However, if the defendant in this scenario had been convicted of a crime punishable as a felony, such as causing an injury while driving under the influence in violation of California Vehicle Code Section (commonly referred to as felony D.U.I. ), Evidence Code Section 1300 would apply, and the conviction would be admissible in the subsequent civil trial, subject to Evidence Code Section 352. A felony D.U.I. conviction may also allow plaintiffs to recover punitive damages and attorney fees under Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890. Collateral estoppel effect of criminal conviction In addition to the hearsay exception created by Evidence Code Section 1300, which only addresses the evidentiary use (e.g. admissibility) of the criminal conviction for a felony in a subsequent civil trial, it is well established by case law that a litigant s conviction in a criminal case may be used for purposes of collateral estoppel or res judicata in subsequent civil actions as it applies to issues determined in the previous criminal case. Accordingly, courts often preclude re-litigation of issues decided in prior criminal cases if certain requirements are met. 26 FORUM July/August 2015 Consumer Attorneys Of California
2 A felony D.U.I. conviction may also allow plaintiffs to recover punitive damages and attorney fees The doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata establish that once a case has reached a final judgment, re-litigation of the claims and issues is generally barred. Res judicata gives conclusive effect to a former judgment in subsequent litigation between the same parties involving the same cause of action. (7 Witkin, Cal. Proc. 5th (2008) Judgm, 401, p ) Collateral estoppel, also referred to as issue preclusion involves a second action between the same parties on a different cause of action. (Rest.2d, Judgments 27 et seq.) The first action is not a complete merger or bar, but operates as an estoppel or conclusive adjudication as to such issues in the second action which were actually litigated and determined in the first action. (Todhunter v. Smith (1934) 219 C. 690.) In the present example, given that the claims are different but the defendant s negligence is at issue in both cases, the inquiry would be whether the collateral estoppel doctrine applies. In 1962, the California Supreme Court held that doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes parties or others in privity with those parties from re-litigating issues decided in prior criminal proceedings that have been finally determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. (Teitelbaum Furs, Inc. v. Dominion Ins. Co. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 601.) Teitelbaum held that any issue necessarily decided in such prior criminal proceedings is conclusively determined as to the parties or their privies if it is involved in a subsequent lawsuit even on a different cause of action. Even though the principle in Teitelbaum and the exception in Evidence Code 1300 apply to felony convictions, the mere fact that a conviction was for a misdemeanor stephanie phillips rather than a felony does not defeat the application of collateral estoppel in subsequent civil trials. (Mueller v. J.C. Penney Co. (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 713, 721 n.9.) Mueller held that if due process requirements are met, collateral estoppel may apply similarly to misdemeanor convictions. The judicial concern with a prior misdemeanor conviction is that the misdemeanor be for a serious offense, so that the criminal defendant was motivated to ligate fully (e.g., one where the sentencing guidelines provide for jail time). Whether the doctrine is applicable or not must be decided by the court looking at the actions taken to defend the case and not at the potential penalties. (Id. at ) Collateral estoppel may be applied only if due process requirements are satisfied. (Id.) In 1986, the Court of Appeal for the Second District clarified that the collateral estoppel effect of a criminal conviction extends beyond felony convictions. (Leader v. State of California (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 1079.) The Leader court held that a misdemeanor conviction may also be used for collateral estoppel purposes in subsequent civil trials on a case-by-case basis. Leader set forth a guideline upon which application of collateral estoppel can be premised. When applying collateral estoppel based on a former misdemeanor conviction, the criteria are as follows: First, the prior conviction must have been for a serious offense so that the defendant was motivated to fully litigate the charges (now determined to include misdemeanors pursuant to the Mueller case). Second, there must have been a full and fair trial to prevent convictions of doubtful validity from being used. Third, the issue upon which the prior conviction is offered must necessarily have been decided at the criminal trial. Fourth, the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party, or in privity with the party at the prior trial. (Ayers v. City of Richmond (1990) 895 F.2d 1267, 1271; Lumpkin v. Jordan (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1223, 1230; McGowan v. City of San Diego (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 890, 895. See generally, Leader (1986) 182 Cal. App.3d 1079.) Plaintiffs should keep in mind that there are certain limitations to the framework that allows a conviction to be used for purposes of collateral estoppel. Although a felony conviction based on a guilty plea may be admissible to the extent that it is an admission, it does not qualify as grounds for establishing collateral estoppel. (Allstate Ins. Co. v. Overton (1984) 160 Cal. App.3d 843, 848 n.3.) Additionally, factual determinations made in sentencing hearings or preliminary hearings do not have a preclusive effect in subsequent civil cases. (Maciel v. Commissioner (2007) 489 F.3d 1018, 1024; McCutchen v. City of Montclair (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1138, ) Last, the criminal proceeding must be determined finally for subsequent courts to apply a finding of collateral estoppel. (People v. Huston (1989) 210 Cal. App.3d 192, 224.) When the law does not offer a recognized exception from the doctrine of collateral estoppel, litigants attempting to avoid unfavorable results have often raised various arguments against the doctrine that have been found ineffective. (1 Cal. Affirmative Def. 15:11 (2d ed).) Section 352 of the Evidence Code permits the court to exclude evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. However, Evidence Code Section 352 does not offer an independent basis for avoiding the doctrine of collateral estoppel. (Leader v. State of California (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 1079, 1090 [declining to apply Evidence Code 352].) Accordingly, even though the court may exclude evidence of the conviction if it finds that the probative value is substantially outweighed by the prejudicial impact, a court may still find that an issue cannot be re-litigated in a subsequent civil trial. Nor can a litigant argue that their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial is being violated if a civil action is precluded Consumer Attorneys Of California July/August 2015 FORUM 27
3 based on the collateral estoppel effect of issues decided in a previous criminal trial. (McGowan v. City of San Diego (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 890, 897.) The contributory negligence dilemma The collateral estoppel effect of a criminal conviction in a subsequent trial for purposes of establishing fault or liability appear to be well defined by the courts. If a defendant s liability is established in a criminal case as part of the elements of the crime, the conviction even for a misdemeanor will collaterally estop the defendant from re-litigating that issue in subsequent civil trial. However, case law is unclear as to whether evidence and arguments of comparative fault or contributory negligence can also be excluded from subsequent civil trials if the jury in the criminal trial did not necessarily decide these matters. In examining this issue in the context of two consecutive civil actions, it is clear that if the issue of contributory negligence was adjudicated and was decided against the plaintiff who is in privity with the plaintiff in the subsequent civil action, it will have a preclusive estoppel effect. This was illustrated in Zaragosa v. Craven (1948) 33 Cal.2d 315. In Zaragosa, an adverse verdict for a husband in a right to sue action constituted an estoppel, or was res judicata, in the present action, which was a suit by the wife against the same defendant previously unsuccessfully sued by her husband, seeking recovery for her personal injuries sustained in the same accident. The court pointed out that the issues of the defendant s negligence, and the husband s contributory negligence, which was to be imputed to the wife, had already been decided in the prior case and could not be retried. However, courts have not dealt with this dilemma in the context of examining the effect of a finding in a criminal proceeding on a subsequent civil trial when contributory negligence is raised as a defense and a means for reducing a plaintiff s damages. Consider our hypothetical: A jury convicts a criminal defendant of misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter. Throughout the criminal trial, the defense argues that the victim s actions contributed to his or her own death. The jury instructions for vehicular manslaughter require a jury to find that a defendant committed the otherwise lawful act with ordinary negligence. (CALCRIM 593.) The victim s family subsequently brings a civil action for negligence against the criminal defendant. Would the finding of negligence inherent in the criminal conviction have a collateral estoppel effect in the civil trial? More perplexingly, should the defendant be allowed to argue again, in the civil action, that the victim contributed to his or her injury? Under Teitelbaum, the finding of negligence under the CALCRIM 593 instruction may have a collateral estoppel effect. Since it is a misdemeanor, Mueller requires that the requirements in Leader be satisfied: First, the court must consider whether the charge in the defendant s prior criminal case, vehicular manslaughter, may be considered a serious offense which motivated [the defendant] to fully litigate the charges[.] (Ayers, 895 F.2d at 1271.) As the charge carries the possibility of jail time it will likely be considered serious for purposes of the collateral estoppel doctrine. (Leader, 182 Cal.App.3d at 1088.) Next, the court must consider whether the defendant in the criminal trial, receive[d] the benefits of rigorous safeguards against unjust conviction, including the requirements of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.... (Mueller, 173 Cal. App.3d at 721 (quoting Teitelbaum, 58 Cal.2d at 606).) Third, the issue upon which the prior conviction is offered must necessarily have been decided at the criminal trial. In this scenario, in order for the prosecution to prove that the defendant violated Penal Code Section 192(c)(2) in the criminal case, the prosecution had to prove that the defendant committed the otherwise lawful act with ordinary negligence. (CAL- CRIM 593.) Defendant s negligence was established in the criminal case, indeed to a higher evidentiary standard beyond a reasonable doubt. 28 FORUM July/August 2015 Consumer Attorneys Of California
4 Consumer Attorneys Of California July/August 2015 FORUM 29
5 Lastly, the least contentious issue is whether the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted, was a party or in privity with the party at the prior trial. In this scenario, the defendant is the same person in both cases. For purposes of this discussion, and to illustrate the dilemma courts may face, the third prong above must be revisited. Even though the defendant s negligence was undoubtedly established in the conviction, and this prong of the analysis is satisfied for purposes of estoppel of re-litigation of the issue of defendant s negligence, it is unclear whether the issue of the victim s contributory negligence or lack thereof was necessarily adjudicated or decided. Case law is inconclusive as to how this issue would be resolved and has not addressed this issue directly. On the one hand, the mere fact that the victim s own negligence was alleged as part of the defense in the criminal case doesn t mean that the issue of contributory negligence was necessarily decided in the criminal trial. A defendant will undoubtedly argue that it would be unfair to hold otherwise when the jury instructions in the criminal case never required the jury to specifically consider the victim s own negligence. On the other hand, contributory negligence would have necessarily created a certain degree of reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury, and it failed to do so. The jury in the criminal case, in finding that the defendant was negligent beyond a reasonable doubt already rejected albeit to an incalculable extent the notion that the victim s actions contributed to their injury. But where should that line be drawn? How much contributory negligence by a victim is required until a reasonable doubt is raised as to the defendant s liability? What if the defendant s entire defense in the criminal trial was premised upon the argument that the victim contributed to the injury? What if the defense, throughout the criminal trial, consistently argued that the pedestrian was walking in the road, wore dark clothes, and was walking on the wrong side of the street? Should the convicted criminal defendant turned civil defendant now be able to have another shot at mounting the very same defense which was already rejected to a certain extent by a jury? It would appear that the jury should be advised that the defendant cannot now re-argue his or her liability, or at a minimum, be informed of the conviction. However, as explained above, even though the conviction will have a collateral estoppel effect in terms of establishing liability, any mention of the misdemeanor conviction must be excluded as hearsay. In fact, even if the defendant here were convicted of a crime punishable as a felony, it would still be unclear whether the defendant may allege in the civil trial that the victim was contributorily negligent. This is the unsettled question in California law: How do the courts reconcile the doctrine of collateral estoppel which favors precluding the re-litigation of an issue that was conclusively determined with the hearsay principle that excludes a misdemeanor criminal conviction from a subsequent civil trial? Even more perplexing is the challenge of allowing the conviction to have a preclusive effect as to the issue of negligence, while simultaneously excluding the conviction, but precluding re-litigation of the issue of the victim s contributory negligence. In such a scenario, it appears that a court would have to pick its poison: Infer a finding by a jury on an issue they weren t specifically asked to consider, or allow a convicted criminal found guilty (and thereby negligent) beyond a reasonable doubt turned civil defendant to have a second bite at the apple. n 1 Penal Code Section 192(c)(2) defines vehicular manslaughter as driving a vehicle in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony, but without gross negligence; or driving a vehicle in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, but without gross negligence. 2 As a precautionary measure, plaintiffs may want to hold off on filing civil suit until after the criminal case is resolved. This gives plaintiffs significant advantages including, but not limited to, precluding defendant from invoking the Fifth Amendment in the civil trial. RETAIL INDUSTRY EXPERT WITNESS EVALUATE ALL ISSUES OF INDUSTRY STANDARDS OF CARE IN: * SUPERMARKETS * GENERAL MERCHANDISE STORES * HOME IMPROVEMENT CENTERS * RESTAURANTS * FAST FOOD OPERATIONS * WAREHOUSE STORES * SPECIALTY STORES * CONVENIENCE STORES * SMALL BUSINESS OPERATIONS INDUSTRY STANDARDS ISSUES INCLUDE: * Slip/Trip and Fall * Floor Care & Maintenance Procedures * Store Security * ADA Compliance * Merchandising Procedures * Loss Prevention * Food Handling Procedures * Internal Operation Procedures * Wrongful Termination Alex J. Balian, MBA (818) Plaintiff s Expert - Ortega vs. K-Mart 30 FORUM July/August 2015 Consumer Attorneys Of California
NOT ACTUAL PROTECTION: ACTUAL INNOCENCE STANDARD FOR CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS IN CALIFORNIA DOES NOT ELIMINATE ACTUAL LAWSUITS AND ACTUAL PAYMENTS
NOT ACTUAL PROTECTION: ACTUAL INNOCENCE STANDARD FOR CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS IN CALIFORNIA DOES NOT ELIMINATE ACTUAL LAWSUITS AND ACTUAL PAYMENTS By Celeste King, JD and Barrett Breitung, JD* In 1998
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA William J. Bell : : No. 2034 C.D. 2012 v. : Submitted: April 19, 2013 : Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, : Department of Transportation, : Bureau of Driver Licensing,
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ STREET ADDRESS: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY AND ZIP CODE: BRANCH NAME:
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ STREET ADDRESS: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY AND ZIP CODE: BRANCH NAME: : PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. DUI ADVISEMENT OF RIGHTS, WAIVER, AND PLEA FORM
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 informationGlossary of Court-related Terms
Glossary of Court-related Terms Acquittal Adjudication Appeal Arraignment Arrest Bail Bailiff Beyond a reasonable doubt Burden of proof Capital offense Certification Charge Circumstantial evidence Citation
More informationDecades of Successful Sex Crimes Defense Contact the Innocence Legal Team Now
Criminal Court Felonies The U.S. has the highest rate of felony conviction and imprisonment of any industrialized nation. A felony crime is more serious than a misdemeanor, but the same offense can be
More informationGeneral District Courts
General District Courts To Understand Your Visit to Court You Should Know: It is the courts wish that you know your rights and duties. We want every person who comes here to receive fair treatment in accordance
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Kern County Superior Court
COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff and Respondent, F065134 v. Kern County Superior Court ARMANDO ALVAREZQUINTERO, No. BF132212A
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appellant, Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO FILED BY CLERK JAN 31 2013 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, v. SCOTT ALAN COLVIN, Appellant, Appellee. 2 CA-CR 2012-0099 DEPARTMENT
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF IMPERIAL. People v. Case No. Advisement of Rights, Waiver, and Plea Form
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF IMPERIAL People v. Case No. Advisement of Rights, Waiver, and Plea Form Vehicle Code 23152 Fill out this form if you wish to plead guilty or no contest to the charges
More informationSubchapter 6.600 Criminal Procedure in District Court
Subchapter 6.600 Criminal Procedure in District Court Rule 6.610 Criminal Procedure Generally (A) Precedence. Criminal cases have precedence over civil actions. (B) Pretrial. The court, on its own initiative
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. Plaintiff, COUNT 1
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, v. Plaintiff, 01 SHERRI LYNN WILKINS (03/28/1961) Defendant(s). CASE NO. YA086025 The undersigned
More informationPatrick D. Heller, Esq.*
IN THE WAKE OF THE ZIMMER DECISION, CAN A TORT PLAINTIFF INTRODUCE EVIDENCE OF A SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY AWARD AT THE TIME OF TRIAL? Patrick D. Heller, Esq.* Recently, in the published decision of Villanueva
More informationGLOSSARY 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 informationIN 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 informationTYPE OF OFFENSE(S) AND SECTION NUMBER(S) LIST OFFENSE(S), CASE NUMBER(S) AND DATE(S) CASE NUMBER(S) AND DATE(S)
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA Reserved for Clerk s File Stamp COUNTY: COUNTY OF EL DORADO PLAINTIFF: PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEFENDANT: DUI ADVISEMENT OF RIGHTS, WAIVER, AND PLEA FORM (Vehicle
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Schiller, J. May, 2001
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DIVERSIFIED HEALTH ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., CIVIL ACTION Plaintiffs, v. BOROUGH OF NORRISTOWN, et al., No. 00-5702 Defendants.
More informationA Victim s Guide to the Capital Case Process
A Victim s Guide to the Capital Case Process Office of Victims Services California Attorney General s Office A Victim s Guide to the Capital Case Process Office of Victims Services California Attorney
More information42 4 1301. Driving under the influence driving while impaired driving with excessive alcoholic content definitions penalties.
42 4 1301. Driving under the influence driving while impaired driving with excessive alcoholic content definitions penalties. (1) (a) It is a misdemeanor for any person who is under the influence of alcohol
More informationNASD REGULATION, INC. OFFICE OF HEARING OFFICERS. : No. C11970032 v. : : Hearing Officer - SW : : Respondent. :
NASD REGULATION, INC. OFFICE OF HEARING OFFICERS : DEPARTMENT OF ENFORCEMENT, : : Complainant, : Disciplinary Proceeding : No. C11970032 v. : : Hearing Officer - SW : : Respondent. : : ORDER GRANTING MOTION
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 Attorney for Defendants John Smith, and Stan Moon SUE KIM SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CENTRAL DISTRICT, MOSK COURTHOUSE UNLIMITED Plaintiff vs. JOHN SMITH, an
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D, this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE KEVIN D. TALLEY, Defendant-Below No. 172, 2003 Appellant, v. Cr. ID No. 0108005719 STATE OF DELAWARE, Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware,
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 informationThe Circuit Court. Judges and Clerks. Jurisdiction
The Circuit Court The circuit court is the trial court of general jurisdiction in Virginia, and the court has authority to try a full range of both civil and criminal cases. Civil cases involve disputes
More informationGlossary of Terms Acquittal Affidavit Allegation Appeal Arraignment Arrest Warrant Assistant District Attorney General Attachment Bail Bailiff Bench
Glossary of Terms The Glossary of Terms defines some of the most common legal terms in easy-tounderstand language. Terms are listed in alphabetical order. A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W
More informationIN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR WOODBURY COUNTY. WRITTEN PLEA OF GUILTY AND WAIVER OF RIGHTS (OWI First Offense)
IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR WOODBURY COUNTY THE STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff, vs. Defendant. CRIMINAL NO. WRITTEN PLEA OF GUILTY AND WAIVER OF RIGHTS (OWI First Offense) COMES NOW the above-named Defendant
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
Filed 6/24/02 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX RONALD J. GRINHAM, Cross-Complainant and Appellant, 2d Civil No. B151600
More informationCriminal Justice System Commonly Used Terms & Definitions
Criminal Justice System Commonly Used Terms & Definitions A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Accused: Acquittal: Adjudication: Admissible Evidence: Affidavit: Alford Doctrine: Appeal:
More informationH. VIOLATION OF COURT ORDER
H. VIOLATION OF COURT ORDER 2700. Violation of Court Order (Pen. Code, 166(a)(4) & (b)(1)) The defendant is charged [in Count ] with violating a court order [in violation of Penal Code section 166]. To
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2010-IA-02028-SCT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2010-IA-02028-SCT RENE C. LEVARIO v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/23/2010 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ROBERT P. KREBS COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: JACKSON COUNTY
More informationHow To Find A Guilty Verdict In An Accident Accident Case In Anarazona
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT
More informationJn the anttth Statto Dftrkt Court for the boutbern Motrid ot eorgta 3runMutck Obtfiton
Case 2:09-cv-00096-LGW-JEG Document 39 Filed 07/16/10 Page 1 of 15 Jn the anttth Statto Dftrkt Court for the boutbern Motrid ot eorgta 3runMutck Obtfiton STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff,
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 informationCommonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: MARCH 14, 2008; 2:00 P.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2007-CA-001304-MR DONALD T. CHRISTY APPELLANT v. APPEAL FROM MASON CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE STOCKTON
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF GUAM
DISTRICT COURT OF GUAM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1-0000 1 RODNEY M. KIDD, vs. ORDER AND DECISION RE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL UNDER RULE (c) 1 Defendant. 1 1 1 0 1 Before
More informationOBJECTIVES CRIMINAL PROCESS- PROSECUTING ATTORNEY S OFFICE NAVIGATING THE CRIMINAL AND CIVIL PROCESS IN CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT CASES
NAVIGATING THE CRIMINAL AND CIVIL PROCESS IN CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT CASES LORI FLUEGEL ASSISTANT PROSECUTING ATTORNEY JACKSON COUNTY OBJECTIVES UNDERSTANDING OF THE CRIMINAL AND CIVIL PROCESS OF CHILD
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as Agic v. Natl. Union Fire Ins., Co of Pittsburgh, 2014-Ohio-4205.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 100679 EDIN AGIC vs. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
More informationLEGAL MALPRACTICE AND THE CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY By Peter L. Ostermiller
LEGAL MALPRACTICE AND THE CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY By Peter L. Ostermiller Occasionally, a defendant, while incarcerated and apparently having nothing better to do, will file a Motion under RCr. 11.42,
More informationRULES OF SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA PART THREE A CRIMINAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE APPENDIX
RULES OF SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA PART THREE A CRIMINAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE APPENDIX Form 6. Suggested Questions to Be Put by the Court to an Accused Who Has Pleaded Guilty (Rule 3A:8). Before accepting
More informationCOURT OF COMMON PLEAS CLERMONT COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiffs : CASE NO. 2012 CVA 01052
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CLERMONT COUNTY, OHIO FRANKLIN MILLER, et al., : Plaintiffs : CASE NO. 2012 CVA 01052 vs. : Judge McBride H&G NURSING HOMES, INC., et al., : DECISION/ENTRY Defendants : Slater & Zurz,
More informationMONTANA EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, CASCADE COUNTY. Appearing on behalf of the Named Plaintiff and the Class were attorneys Daniel P.
,5SEPV Wl0: 3ii /"'LCD JCOURT MONTANA EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, CASCADE COUNTY Robert Jacobsen, -vs- Allstate Insurance Company, Plaintiff, Defendant. Cause No.: ADV-03-201(d) Final Order Approving
More informationCOURT OF COMMON PLEAS, BELMONT COUNTY, OHIO. State of Ohio, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) CASE NO.: vs. ) ) DRUG COURT PLEA, ) ) Defendant )
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, BELMONT COUNTY, OHIO State of Ohio, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) CASE NO.: vs. ) ) DRUG COURT PLEA, ) ) Defendant ) I,, being before the Court this day and with my counsel, Attorney, represent
More informationCASENOTE JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS
CASENOTE JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS FAILURE OF DEFENDANT TO INCLUDE PROPER CODE SECTION IN ANSWER AS TO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN A CAR ACCIDENT CLAIM WAIVES THE BAR OF THE STATUTE
More informationMorgan County Prosecuting Attorney Debra MH McLaughlin
Morgan County Prosecuting Attorney Debra MH McLaughlin Directions: From Fairfax Street Entrance, Enter Main Door, turn Right through door, up the narrow staircase. Office is at top of steps. (Old Circuit
More information**************************************** I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND.
STATE OF IDAHO County of KOOTENAI ss FILED AT O clock M CLERK, DISTRICT COURT Deputy IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, vs. STATE OF IDAHO IN AND FOR THE COUNTY
More informationGENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2011 HOUSE DRH11149-TG-5 (12/01) Short Title: Tort Reform Act of 2011. (Public)
H GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION HOUSE DRH-TG- (/01) D Short Title: Tort Reform Act of. (Public) Sponsors: Referred to: Representatives Blust and Daughtry (Primary Sponsors). 1 A BILL TO BE
More informationSTATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, MIGUEL BARAJAS, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
No. 100,785 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. MIGUEL BARAJAS, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. K.S.A. 21-4711(e) requires the district court to classify a
More informationJune 5, 2014. Re: State v. Mark E. Dean Def. I.D. No. 01303009234. I am called upon here to rule on a dispute between the defendant Mark E.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE CHARLES E. BUTLER JUDGE NEW CASTLE COUNTY COURTHOUSE 500 NORTH KING STREET Suite 10400 WILMINGTON, DE 19801 PHONE: (302) 255-0656 FAX: (302) 255-2274 Zachary Rosen,
More informationBenjamin Zelermyer, for appellant. Michael G. Gaynor, for respondent. The issue presented by this appeal is whether
================================================================= This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. -----------------------------------------------------------------
More informationHow To Win A Medical Malpractice Lawsuit In Tennessee
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE December 4, 2007 Session JUANITA MULLINS, individually and as Executor of the Estate of DANIEL V. MULLINS, deceased v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the
More informationAGUIRRE v. UNION PACIFIC RR. CO. 597 Cite as 20 Neb. App. 597. N.W.2d
AGUIRRE v. UNION PACIFIC RR. CO. 597 At the hearing on the motion to withdraw his plea, he requested that the court take judicial notice of a six-page portion of the U.S. statutes. The court took judicial
More informationMs. Steffen's Bankruptcy Case
T.C. Memo. 2012-264 UNITED STATES TAX COURT PAUL A. BILZERIAN AND TERRI L. STEFFEN, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 3648-98. Filed September 12, 2012. Paul A. Bilzerian
More informationCircuits For Summary Judgment in PA - Case Law
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TRIAL DIVISION CIVIL Plaintiff v. COLONY INSURANCE COMPANY JOSEPH ROCCO & SONS d/b/a/ HAYDEN CONSTRUCTION, CO.
More informationA Federal Criminal Case Timeline
A Federal Criminal Case Timeline The following timeline is a very broad overview of the progress of a federal felony case. Many variables can change the speed or course of the case, including settlement
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
CAVEAT: This sample is provided to demonstrate style and format. It is not intended as a model for the substantive argument, and therefore counsel should not rely on its legal content which may include
More informationOffice of Assigned Counsel County of San Diego Application for Indigent Defense Attorney Panel
. Background Name: SS#: Bar No.: Office Address: Phone: Fax: E-mail: Are you a SDCBA Member? Yes No. Education and Admissions Law School: Graduated: Years Practiced Law: Date Admitted in California: Admitted
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D, this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
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 informationC O H E N, T O D D, K I T E & S T A N F O R D, L L C
C O H E N, T O D D, K I T E & S T A N F O R D, L L C John L. O Shea Member Direct: (513) 333-5227 Mobile: (513) 300-4012 Email: joshea@ctks.com visit superlawyers.com Top 50 Cincinnati Super Lawyer 2012,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 2:03-cv-01500-KOB -TMP Document 1718 Filed 07/26/10 Page 1 of 9 FILED 2010 Jul-26 PM 02:01 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. Docket No. 41952 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 41952 MICHAEL T. HAYES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF IDAHO, Respondent. 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 634 Filed: September 16, 2015 Stephen
More informationChapter 153. Violations and Fines 2013 EDITION. Related Laws Page 571 (2013 Edition)
Chapter 153 2013 EDITION Violations and Fines VIOLATIONS (Generally) 153.005 Definitions 153.008 Violations described 153.012 Violation categories 153.015 Unclassified and specific fine violations 153.018
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 3/21/97 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE STACY RUTTENBERG, Plaintiff and Appellant, B092022 (Super. Ct. No. LC025584)
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 informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Filed 1/27/16 P. v. Morales CA4/2 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 for publication
More informationDefensive Strategies in False Marking Suits After Stauffer and Pequignot
Defensive Strategies in False Marking Suits After Stauffer and Pequignot Contributed by Angie M. Hankins, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP Many companies inadvertently mark their products with expired patents.
More informationHow To Prove That A Person Is Not Responsible For A Cancer
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Alternative Burdens May Come With Alternative Causes
More informationTable of Contents. Selected Iowa Wrongful Death Laws and Rules
Table of Contents 1. What is a wrongful death claim?... 2 2. Who may recover compensation for a wrongful death?... 3 3. How is a wrongful death claim commenced?... 4 4. What types of losses are compensated
More informationAPPLICATION FOR CRIMINAL LAW PANELS. State Bar number: Telephone: Fax: Full time SF office address: Mailing address (if different):
APPLICATION F CRIMINAL LAW PANELS Lawyer Referral and Information Service 301 Battery Street, 3rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 477-2374 Fax: (415) 477-2389 URL: http://www.sfbar.org Name:
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 informationTrial 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 informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. Docket No. 40673 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 40673 STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ALBERT RAY MOORE, Defendant-Appellant. 2014 Opinion No. 8 Filed: February 5, 2014 Stephen W. Kenyon,
More informationI N T H E COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res
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 informationGOPY7. for DUI with property damage, and one for driving with a. two for driving under the. No. 86,019 STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner,
No. 86,019 GOPY7 STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. WILLIAM R. WOODRUFF, Respondent. [May 16, 19961 GRIMES, C.J. We have for review State v. WoodrUf f, 654 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 19951, which expressly
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT
Filed 11/9/11 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT KRISTY BEETS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. B227630 (Los Angeles
More informationNO. 142, September Term, 1994 Chambco, A Division of Chamberlin Waterproofing & Roofing, Inc. v. Urban Masonry Corporation
NO. 142, September Term, 1994 Chambco, A Division of Chamberlin Waterproofing & Roofing, Inc. v. Urban Masonry Corporation [Involves Maryland Code (1974, 1995 Repl. Vol.), 10-504 Of The Courts And Judicial
More informationORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
Case 3:07-cv-01886-JAG-SCC Document 473 Filed 06/10/13 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO SAMUEL HILDENBRAND, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
More informationOLMSTED COUNTY ATTORNEY DOMESTIC ABUSE PROSECUTION POLICY POLICY STATEMENT:
OLMSTED COUNTY ATTORNEY DOMESTIC ABUSE PROSECUTION POLICY POLICY STATEMENT: It is the policy of the Olmsted County Attorney to pursue all domestic abuse allegations with zealous, yet discretionary prosecution
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
More informationCriminal Law. Month Content Skills August. Define the term jurisprudence. Introduction to law. What is law? Explain several reasons for having laws.
Criminal Law Month Content Skills August Introduction to law Define the term jurisprudence. What is law? Explain several reasons for having laws. Discuss the relationship between laws and values. Give
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN B255326
Filed 1/21/15 Century Quality Management v. JMS Air Conditioning etc. CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing
More informationWhen Criminal and Civil Litigation Collide
When Criminal and Civil Litigation Collide Friday, September 20, 2013; 9:00 10:15 a.m. Susan E. Coleman, Burke, Williams & Sorensen League of California Cities 2013 Annual Conference; City Attorneys Track
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D, this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
More informationC O H E N, T O D D, K I T E & S T A N F O R D, L L C
C O H E N, T O D D, K I T E & S T A N F O R D, L L C John L. O Shea Member Direct: (513) 333-5227 Mobile: (513) 300-4012 Email: joshea@ctks.com visit superlawyers.com Top 50 Cincinnati Super Lawyer 2012,
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 informationCardelli 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 informationFirst Regular Session Seventieth General Assembly STATE OF COLORADO INTRODUCED SENATE SPONSORSHIP
First Regular Session Seventieth General Assembly STATE OF COLORADO INTRODUCED LLS NO. 1-00.01 Richard Sweetman x HOUSE BILL 1- HOUSE SPONSORSHIP Saine and McCann, Cooke and Johnston, SENATE SPONSORSHIP
More informationThe Legal System in the United States
The Legal System in the United States At the conclusion of this chapter, students will be able to: 1. Understand how the legal system works; 2. Explain why laws are necessary; 3. Discuss how cases proceed
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE DIVISION. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) ) v. ) No. ) (Judge ) ) )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) ) v. ) No. ) (Judge ) ) ) PETITION TO ENTER A PLEA OF GUILTY (Misdemeanor) I,, respectfully represent
More informationIf You Have Been Charged With a Crime that Requires the Prosecution to Prove Possession Based on a Constructive Possession Argument It Is Crucial for
CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION IN TENNESSEE CRIMINAL OFFENSES If You Have Been Charged With a Crime that Requires the Prosecution to Prove Possession Based on a Constructive Possession Argument It Is Crucial
More informationPLEADING YOUR LICENSE AWAY
PLEADING YOUR LICENSE AWAY By Ralph B. Saltsman with Stephen Warren Solomon and Stephen A. Jamieson File this scenario under Just when you think your troubles are over. You accidentally place a bunch of
More informationFirst Regular Session Sixty-ninth General Assembly STATE OF COLORADO INTRODUCED HOUSE SPONSORSHIP SENATE SPONSORSHIP
First Regular Session Sixty-ninth General Assembly STATE OF COLORADO INTRODUCED LLS NO. 1-01.01 Richard Sweetman x HOUSE BILL 1- Waller, HOUSE SPONSORSHIP (None), SENATE SPONSORSHIP House Committees Judiciary
More informationIN 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 informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. Docket No. 40135 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 40135 STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JUAN L. JUAREZ, Defendant-Appellant. 2013 Opinion No. 60 Filed: November 12, 2013 Stephen W. Kenyon,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE B254585
Filed 2/26/15 Vega v. Goradia CA2/5 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 informationAPPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Dane County: STEVEN D. EBERT, Judge. Affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED August 28, 2008 David R. Schanker Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in
More informationNO. COA11-480 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 7 February 2012. 1. Motor Vehicles driving while impaired sufficient evidence
NO. COA11-480 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 7 February 2012 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Union County No. 10 CRS 738 DOUGLAS ELMER REEVES 1. Motor Vehicles driving while impaired sufficient evidence
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