[divorce caption]
FINAL DECREE OF DIVORCE
On ______ the Court heard this case.
Appearances
Petitioner, *{{______}}*, *[appeared in person and through attorney of record, [name]*{{[name]}}*, and announced ready for trial.]**[did not appear in person but has agreed to the entry of this order as evidenced by Petitioner's signature below.]*
Respondent, *{{______}}*, *[appeared in person and announced ready for trial.]**[appeared through attorney of record, [name]*{{[name]}}*, and announced ready for trial.]**[appeared in person and through attorney of record, [name]*{{[name]}}*, and announced ready for trial.]**[although duly and properly cited, did not appear and wholly made default.]**[waived issuance and service of citation by waiver duly filed and did not otherwise appear.]**[has made a general appearance and has agreed to the terms of this judgment to the extent permitted by law, as evidenced by the signatures of Respondent and attorney for Respondent appearing below.]**[has made a general appearance and was duly notified of trial but failed to appear and defaulted.]*
*[*[*[ Also appearing was ______, appointed guardian ad litem of the child[ren] the subject of this suit.
]**[ Also appearing was ______, appointed attorney ad litem of the child[ren] the subject of this suit.
]**[ Also appearing was ______, appointed amicus attorney for the child[ren] the subject of this suit.
]*]**[ Also appearing was ______, appointed attorney ad litem for *{{______}}*, who received process by substituted service but did not otherwise answer or appear.
]*]*Record
*[ The making of a record of testimony was waived by the parties with the consent of the Court.
]**[ The record of testimony was duly reported by *[______, ______]**[the court reporter for ______]*.
]*Jurisdiction and Domicile
The Court finds that the pleadings of [Petitioner/Respondent] are in due form and contain all the allegations, information, and prerequisites required by law. The Court, after receiving evidence, finds that it has jurisdiction of this case and of all the parties and that at least sixty days have elapsed since the date the suit was filed. The Court finds that, at the time this suit was filed, *[[Petitioner/Respondent] had been a domiciliary of Texas for the preceding six-month period and a resident of the county in which this suit was filed for the preceding ninety-day period.]**[Petitioner was domiciled in another state or nation and Respondent had been a domiciliary of Texas for the preceding six-month period and was a resident of this county in which the suit was filed.]* All persons entitled to citation were properly cited.
Jury
*[ A jury was waived, and questions of fact and of law were submitted to the Court.
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.
Analysis / Ruling of the Court. The district court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgement on the sexual harassment claim due to the fact that Sherry Lynch treated both men and women equally in this case; that is, she behaved in the same vulgar and inappropriate way towards both genders. For this reason, Smith’s gender was not a contributing factor to the harassment, which is one of the conditions that would have to be met for the sexual harassment claim. The appellate court agreed and affirmed the district court’s judgement. The district court ended up excluding evidence pertaining to the sexual harassment claim because the sexual harassment claim had been dismissed on summary judgement, and because the court decided that the details of the harassment bore little relevance to the retaliation case whereas this evidence would be unfairly prejudicial to Hy-Vee. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgement. Smith did not offer any specifics on what evidence she would have wanted to present, which made it hard for the court to determine whether this evidence was material to the retaliation case or not. In her opposition to the motion in limine, she said she only wanted to discuss the harassment case in general, including mentioning that Lynch had harassed/touched her inappropriately. Hy-Vee had no objection to this, and Smith got to present this much evidence in the trial. Therefore, the appellate court found that she waived any objection to the
(6) Right to a transcript of the proceedings: The Supreme Court did not rule upon the issue of defendant’s right to receive a transcript.
This confirms your assignment as the law clerk with primary responsibility for the above-entitled case. At the moment, a hearing date is not scheduled. However, once the hearing date is scheduled you may be required to prepare a bench memo. I will inform you as soon as the date for oral argument is scheduled.
The areas in which these reforms should occur are twofold. One argument that Judge Ross raises repeatedly is that measures should be taken to insure the sustainability of Family Court employees through more manageable caseloads. The necessity of this change is evident in countless examples of children suffering as a result of constantly changing, thin-spread, staff. In one particular instance, a six month child abuse case is adjourned because they “don’t have the medical records” in time (128). The second argument that can be implicitly made based off of Judge Ross’s expressed frustrations is that, if given the proper time for consideration, there should be more room for consideration of circumstance in Family Court. From a legal standpoint, there is substantial evidence for the validity of a common law approach to Family Court over the traditional civil law. Judge Ross establishes that ideally “In each case to protect children, to assure due process, to remain neutral until the facts are established, to apply common sense and sound judgment within the framework of the law in making decisions—the Family Court judge’s charge lies quite outside the arena of public policy, comment, and debate” (104). However, as seen in many of his cases, the combination of the overflowing workload and an inability to apply proper consideration to any given circumstance makes it impossible for the pre-existing
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.
The following questions need to be answered to further the case pertaining Greene’s v. Jennifer Lawson:
The court findings have finally come to a conclusion, to confirm regard to defendants Alexander, McCarthy, Caruso, and Correctional Medical Services Inc. because the Plantiff has poorly provided evidence specifying suspicious indifference. However, the court overturned the district court’s granting of summary judgment to Heebsh and Pausits, two defendants who return to custody for further actions because of sufficient evidence of deliberate indifference to survive summary judgment.
(B) "Texas v. Johnson Certiorari To The Court Of Criminal Appeals Of Texas." Blacula. (1989): 20pp. Online. Internet. 16 Nov. 1999.
As one of the seven jury deliberations documented and recorded in the ABC News television series In the Jury Room the discussions of the jurors were able to be seen throughout the United States. A transcript was also created by ABC News for the public as well. The emotions and interactions of the jurors were now capable of being portrayed to anyone interested in the interworkings of jury deliberations. The first task,...
Stienstra, Donna, Jared Batallion and Jared A. Catone. "Assistance to Pro Se Litigants in U.S. District Courts: A Report on Surveyrs of Clerks of Court and Chief Judges." 2011. fjc.gov. Web Document. 9 September 2013.
"Introduction To The Federal Court System." The United States Department of Justice - United States Attorney's Office. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2014. .
Powell, Burnele V. "A reaction: 'stand up, your father (a lawyer) is passing'." Michigan Law Review 97.6 (1999): 1373-1377. Academic OneFile. Web. 28 Apr. 2011.
"Rights of the Accused." : Supreme Court Cases. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Dec. 2013. .
... middle of paper ... ... Gonzaga Law Review 33.3 (1998): 653-668. HeinOnline.com -.