FACTS- Harold Caldwell was sued by Robert F. Barnes, but Caldwell claims he was never served or notified to attend the court.
ISSUES- Does the plaintiff, Harold Caldwell, reserve the right to a jury hearing regarding his claim of non-service? Was Caldwell wronged by having his case settled in a pretrial hearing?
DECISIONS- Caldwell’s claim of non-service was a “question of fact”; therefore, he did reserve the right to be given a trial by jury. Caldwell was wronged by being denied a jury trial.
LAW- Plaintiffs who claim non-service do not have to prove certain elements that are ordinarily required to be proven in a typical bill of review process. If the Plaintiff is claiming to not have been served then he/she does not need to show the substances
3. Procedural History: This matter comes before the court on motions of defendants for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for new trial pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for amended judgment. We have considered defendants' motions collectively and individually and conclude that neither a new trial, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, nor amended judgment is warranted. The evidence supports the jury's verdict.
Stevens (Agreed in part with the judgment): Agreed with the ruling, but did not feel the officers should be held liable for third party occurrences while doing their jobs (Pembaur v. Cincinnati,
(3 points) What kind of defenses has the defendant raised? Or, if the case is over, what defenses did the defendant raise? If not clear in the article, what are the likely defenses?
In America’s time there have been many great men who have spent their lives creating this great country. Men such as George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson fit these roles. They are deemed America’s “founding fathers” and laid the support for the most powerful country in history. However, one more man deserves his name to be etched into this list. His name was John Marshall, who decided case after case during his role as Chief Justice that has left an everlasting mark on today’s judiciary, and even society itself. Through Cases such as Marbury v. Madison (1803) and McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) he established the Judicial Branch as an independent power. One case in particular, named Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), displayed his intuitive ability to maintain a balance of power, suppress rising sectionalism, and unite the states under the Federal Government.
Recommendations: It is recommended that our law office regretfully deny service to Ms. Carry based upon the precedent in Kentucky. Based upon the analysis the issue, it is apparent that Ms. Carry would not receive a promising conclusion to her situation. Due to the facts involved and the cases discussed (which are somewhat on point) Ms. Carry does not make a claim in which relief can be granted.
This was a very controversial issue, because the court faced the decision of whether to go with the laws that the forefathers had come up with or grant people right to counsel so that the truth can be brought out. The issue was whether the state of Florida violated Gideon's Sixth Amendment right to counsel, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, because they did not provide him with the assistance of counsel for his criminal defense.
17 years old at the time of the crime, Simmons was tried as an adult. Simmons confessed to the crime and his sole defence at trial was an attempt to dongrade his punishment through the introduction of character evidence. The jury recommended the death penalty, which was imposed by the judge. In the judgment of the US Supreme Court, the laws of other countries and international authorities were instructive for the interpretation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of ‘cruel and unusual punishment’. International consensus as reflected in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child provided respected and significant confirmation of the conclusions drawn. International agreement on the juvenile death penalty
Abe Fortress: Gideon’s lawyer after he was re tried for the same crime and mad the jury find Gideon not guilty. The justices of the Supreme Court: Agreed to hear the case and orally debate it, and voted unanimously with Gideon’s favor. Ira Strickland: The owner of the pool house and testifier. Louie L. Wainwright: The lawyer who represented the state of Florida. Henry Cook: Was a man who was the supreme witness and was found where the break in was. He said he saw Clarence Earl Gideon going into the pool house and coming out with alcohol and money in his pockets. Robert McCrary, Jr: Was the judge in the first case who refused council to Clarence Earl Gideon, And the Judge in the second
What uncompensated work did the plaintiff claim she performed? What should the district court have done with the statement of another employee that the plaintiff did not engage in work prior to her official start time?
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
Lawrence v. Texas In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults who were acting in privacy.
The Florida Supreme Court did not cite any secondary authority in this case. Although it can be assumed that The Florida Supreme Court researched a treatise providing an overview of tort law regarding liability for nonfeasance.
In court Lee faced a problem, he had to establish the evidence to prove that these men were rightfully appointed with integrity. He showed the panel of judges the existence of the commission appointing the three men into office. The commission was also enforced with the president’s nomination, and the Senates conformation to assume office. He also showed the judges that the commission were not sent to its rightful owner. After presenting this information, Lee could now argue that the unsent commission did not destroy the rights of these men, but the illegal actions made by the executive branch forbidding their ascension and that the Secretary of State should follow the law and hand over the commissions. Madison, the State Department, and the Senate refused to provide evidence to Lee, but the Supreme Court would rather hear the evidence to determine the situation. The first witnesses were the State Department clerks, Wagner and Brent, they initially refused to testify, claiming that they cannot disclose any information about their work, but eventually took an oath and testify. The first to testify was Wagner and Lee asked him what he understood about the commissions for the plaintiffs. Wagner replied saying that the did not see the commissions, but when the three men sought out Madison for their commissions Wagner saw that two of the commissions were signed. The next person to the stands were Brent, he
In the pleadings, a complaint needs to be filed by the plaintiff with the court and the defendants. In this case, the complaint was filed for wrongful death and injunctions. The complaint was given to both companies on May 14, 1982. Then, the defendants must answer within twenty-four hours of receiving the complaint to the summon or risk losing the case by default of the court. W.R. Grace denied the allegations against them. Also, their other defenses was that the complaint didn’t state any cause of action, in the complaint the company named was misnamed, the company followed the due of care at all times and acted in “good faith,” and the claims against them are barred. The next step is the methods of discovery.
The case was delayed for 70 months, in which the defendants were denied the right to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise. The judge stayed the case and the court later found that there was prejudice to the defendants as well as a violation of Sections 7 and 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and