FACTS: David W. Elrod, litigation law firm, hired A-Legal, litigation support services, on January 26, 2009 and delivered to them documents and computer disks to start electronic discovery work on the “R Project”. A few days after A-Legal received the necessary files to begin working they informed Elrod that their services were going to be twice as much than what had been previously mentioned. Elrod, subsequently, cancelled their arrangements and looked elsewhere for services. A-Legal submitted its files as requested and billed Elrod $15,000.00, which Elrod refused to pay. A-Legal filed suite for breach of contract and Elrod counterclaimed for breach of contract, as well. Elrod argued that A-Legal violated the contract because they did not perform the work they requested at A-Legal. Instead, Elrod claims that A-Legal had an outside company do their work; furthermore, the work delivered was not completed as agreed upon. While at trial A-Legal claimed damages for the bill that was unpaid and Elrod claimed damages from lost revenue and lost business opportunity due to A-Legal’s breach. The trial court ruled in favor of Elrod and awarded $20,000 in damages and $60,000 in attorney’s fees. Before a written judgment was rendered, Elrod filed a motion to re-open evidence under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 270. The motion was granted and the trial court rendered a written judgment, almost three months later, in favor of Elrod.
Wife appealed from the judgement of Supreme Court, Special Term, Westchester County, N.Y., Morrie Slifkin, J modifying a judgment of divorce by awarding custody of the parties’ children to the husband.
In 1989, plaintiff Joseph Benning was cited for a violation of § 1256 for operating a motorcycle without wearing approved headgear in Caledonia County, Vermont. The statue states that “No person may operate or ride upon a motorcycle upon a highway unless he wears upon his head protective headgear reflectorized in part and of a type approved by the commissioner.1 The headgear shall be equipped with either a neck or chin strap.1” The County State’s Attorney dismissed the citation because he deemed the statue vague and unable to establish the elements necessary to prosecute the crime.1 However, the plaintiffs filed suit against the state, seeking to have § 1256 declared unconstitutional.
Hammer v. Dagenhart case argued inaApril 15,16, 1918 and decided in June 3, 1918 by the supreme court. This case discussed child labor laws. during the progressive era America turned against what was perceived as brutal child labor, in the early 1900’s it was common for kids to work long hours in different types of industries, they had to work more than 60 hours a week, day and night, this brought the supreme court’s attention and that’s how this case was admitted to be discussed in the supreme court.
Case Facts: The sheriff’s department in Humboldt County, Nevada, responded to a 911 call that reported an assault. The 911 caller reported witnessing a man assaulting a woman while driving a GMC truck on a local road. The sheriff’s department responded by sending Deputy Sheriff Lee Dove to investigate. The deputy arrived to the reported area and found the truck parked on the side of the road with a man standing next to it. The deputy approached the truck and explained to the man that he was investigating a 911 call. The deputy then asked the man for any identification and the man refused to provide the deputy any form of identification. The deputy asked the man a total of 11 times to provide his identification and refused each time. The deputy then warned the man that he was going to arrest him if he did not comply. The deputy proceeded to arrest the man and later found out the man was named Larry D. Hiibel. He was charged with "willfully resist[ing], delay[ing], or obstruct[ing] a public officer in discharging or attempting to discharge any legal duty of his office" which is a Nevada statute that is referred to as a "stop and identify" statute. Hiibel was convicted of the crime in the Justice Court of Union Township and fined $250. Hiibel then appealed his conviction to the Sixth Judicial District Court, the Supreme Court of Nevada, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
This case deals with the Defendant's possession of a firearm while under a restraining order, and the charges incurred by the Defendant for such firearm possession. Under Texas law, the possession of a firearm by Mr. Emerson creates a perceivable threat to members of his family, thus creating a violation of the restraining order against him. Apparently common practice in Texas, the restraining order was filed by Mr. Emerson's wife in conjunction with the papers filed for divorce. The restraining order sought to enjoin Emerson from "engaging in various financial transactions to maintain the financial status quo and from making threatening communications or actual attacks upon his wife during the pendency of the divorce proceedings" (United 1). Under Texas law, unbeknownst to Mr. Emerson, the possession of a firearm during the time period of the restraining order constituted a direct violation of the restraining order, and Mr. Emerson was indicted on charges of such violation.
The parole violator shouldn’t even be in the car because he should be in prison behind bars.
Guenther v. Henry Calvert, which determined that Guenther, individually and doing business as ABL Services, is a vexatious litigant pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure section 391, et seq., in that he has, in the past seven years, commended, prosecuted, and maintained in propria persona at least five litigations other than in small claims court that have been finally determined aversely to him or unjustifiably permitted to remain pending at least two years without having been brought to trial or hearing. The order also declared that Guenther has, in the course of litigation while acting in propria persona, repeatedly filed meritless motions, pleadings, and other papers and has engaged in frivolous tactics. The order requires Guenther to furnish for the benefit of all defendants in the litigation adequate security in the amount of $15,000 within 30 days of the date of the order. If he fails to furnish this security, his case will be dismissed. A Pre-Filing Order was also issued which prohibits Guenther, individually or doing business as ABL Services, or doing business under the name of any other business entity under his ownership or control, from filing any new litigation in propria persona in the courts of the State of California without first obtaining leave of the presiding judge of the court where the litigation is proposed to be
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and traditional litigation are different types of ways to resolve legal matters. Traditional litigation can prove very costly and often times drawn out for lengthy periods. ADR affords companies the opportunity to resolve a legal matter in a reasonable amount of time and at times without the exorbitant cost of a trail. The case detailed in this paper is Kovalchick v. South Baldwin Hospital, which used traditional litigation, but reversed on appeal the hospital may want to examine the benefits of ADR.
A case concerning the authority of Congress to enact legislation under the Commerce Clause. While a student enrolled at Virginia Tech in 1994, Christy Brozonkala alleged that she was assaulted and raped by fellow students and football players Antonio Morrison and James Crawford. In 1995, Brzonkala filed a complaint against Morrison and Crawford under Virginia Tech's Sexual Assault Policy. After a hearing, Morrison was found guilty of sexual assault and sentenced to immediate suspension for two semesters. The Committee found insufficient evidence against Crawford. After the findings from the first hearing were dismissed for administrative reasons, a second hearing was held, and Morrison was found guilty of “using “abusive language.” Morrison appealed the decision to the provost and the punishment was set aside for being
The following arguments will be used by Greene’s Jewelry against the defendant; violation of None Disclosure Agreement (NDA) in both Federal and State laws and the countersuit for wrongful termination. Greene’s has the original signed NDA by the defendant, which can be used as evidence. This signed NDA can illustrate the defendant has violated the legally binding agreement she had agreed to while employed under Greene’s jewelry. Howell Jewelry is Greene’s competitor; their intention for hiring the defendant was solely to use confidential documents she had from her previous employer when she was terminated. In addition to violating the NDA, the defendant violated both federal and state versions of the New Hampshire Trade Secret Law, that “safeguards
On February 11, 1983 Robert Augustus Harper, Jr., filed Amicus Curiae on the case of Joyce Bernice Hawthorne v. State of Florida, 740 So.2d. 770. This was the third appearance of Hawthorne in the First District Court of Appeal of Florida for First degree murder, second degree murder and now manslaughter.
The plaintiff’s expert counted the damage for three periods that began from the date when the plaintiff was removed as a signatory on Challenge Graphics' checking account, to the date when the plaintiff’s expert reported, the date when the plaintiff retired at the age of 67, the predicted date when the plaintiff dead at the age of 85.7. The defendants' expert counted the plaintiff's damages for two periods that began from the date when the plaintiff's salary was deducted from $100,100 a year to $10,000 a year to the date when the Shareholders Agreement would have been terminated but for the temporary restraining order, and to the date when the employment was actually terminated. The court took the time from June 4, 2012, when the plaintiff’s salary was deducted to September 8, 2014 when the plaintiff’s employment was terminated. The court calculated that any benefits the company would give plus her original salary is $226,370. Then, minus her actual received salary of $23,111 is 203,259 was lost. In addition, plus the commissions which the plaintiff would earned $39,696 and bonuses of $42,911; also, Challenge Graphics would have made payments of $14,828 for her mobile issues and that Challenge Graphics would have made payments in the amount of $1,537 for the preparation of her taxes. To sum up, the court found that the plaintiff's damages can be
In 1985 a case the Supreme Court heard a case involving searches and seizure of student’s lockers and effects but the school need to show that “reasonable ground existed to believe that the search will uncover evidence of a violation of criminal law or regulation,” rather than the probable cause standard that applies in criminal proceedings. (Shmoop Editorial Team, 2008) Drug testing of students has since been upheld since the Supreme Court heard New Jersey v. T.L.O.
Ernesto Miranda grew up not finishing high school. He didn’t finish the 9th grade, and he decided to drop out of school during that year. He also had a criminal record and had pronounced sexual fantasies after dropping out of high school. Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix in 1963. He had raped an 18 yr. girl who was mildly mentally handicapped in March of 1963. He was charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery. When he was found and arrested, and he was not told of his rights before interrogation. After two hours of interrogation, the cops and detectives had a written confession from Miranda that he did do the crimes that he was acquitted for. Miranda also had a history mental instability, and had no counsel at the time of the trial. The prosecution at the trial mainly used his confession as evidence. Miranda was convicted of both counts of rape and kidnapping. He was sentenced to 20-30 years in prison. He tried to appeal to the Supreme Court in
BUS 3305 Unit 4 Week- Written Assignment: In this week’s written assignment, students are required to Research the American case of Sherwood v. Walker. This case was during the nineteenth century era involving the sale of a cow. It is recognized as one of the most famous contracts cases in American law. Us students are required to give an outline of the facts in the case.