Daily Sun Cornell Chronicle Cornell Review Journal of Empirical Legal Studies International Law Journal Cornell Lunatic Kitsch Magazine International Affairs Review Cornell Policy Review Journal of Law and Public Policy Law Review Legal Information Institute Oyez Project Administrative Science Quarterly ILR Review Journal of Architecture Diacritics Epoch New German Critique arXiv
Industry, CA: Simon Chu and Charley Loh, part-owners and former executives of Chinese appliance manufacturer Gree Electric Appliances and a company that imported, distributed, and sold China-manufactured dehumidifiers to retailers, allegedly knew the dehumidifiers caught fire but failed to report and recall (too expensive) the defects for at least six months. According to the indictment, the two men “deliberately” withheld information about the defective dehumidifiers.
During discovery, both parties also may issue subpoenas to third-party witnesses if other individuals who are not part of the litigation nevertheless have information that may be necessary to the case. For example, if you are suing someone for harassing you, you may need phone records to show how many times a day the person called you. To get those phone records, you would issue a subpoena to the phone company.
In 2015, an investigation commissioned by the UT System concluded that then-President Bill Powers sometimes ordered that students touted by regents, legislators, donors and other prominent people be admitted despite objections from the admissions office. Powers said he always acted in the university's best interests, and it is an open secret that presidents of public and private universities sometimes put a thumb on the admissions scale.
The LII Supreme Court Bulletin is LII's free Supreme Court email-based subscriber and web-based publication service. The Bulletin provides subscribers with two distinct services. The first is a notification service. LII Bulletin emails subscribers with timely notification of when the US Supreme Court has handed down a decision. It also provides subscribers links to the full opinions of those cases on the LII site.
The WIN Court program is dedicated to the treatment and recovery of each participant; assisting with developing a transition plan to set them on a journey of a new life and provide the foundation for a successful future filled with possibilities. WIN Court focuses on teaching balance, resilience and empowerment. They complete an intensive supervised program where they work hard to embrace healthy and productive lifestyles through education, substance abuse treatment, mental health and/or individual therapy, vocational training, financial and life skills. The women do the tough introspective work and commit themselves to their recovery. They learn parenting and communication skills in order to reunite with their children and estranged families. The woman are empowered through effective coping skills, self-esteem, confidence, dignity and communication skills. At graduation, they are hopeful and ready to embark into a life of recovery, independence and success. For more information call 702-38-COURT.
However, it is often more convenient to refer to cases – particularly landmark and other notable cases – by a title of the form Claimant v Defendant (e.g. Arkell v Pressdram). Where a legal proceeding does not have formally designated adverse parties, a form such as In re, Re or In the matter of is used (e.g. In re Gault). The "v" separating the parties is an abbreviation of the Latin versus, but, when spoken in Commonwealth countries, it is normally rendered as "and" or "against" (as in, for example, Charles Dickens' Jarndyce and Jarndyce). Where it is considered necessary to protect the anonymity of a natural person, some cases may have one or both parties replaced by a standard pseudonym (Jane Roe in Roe v. Wade) or by an initial (D v D). In titles such as R v Adams, however, the initial "R" is usually an abbreviation for the Latin Rex or Regina, i.e. for the Crown. (For an explanation of other terms that may appear in case titles, see the Glossary of legal terms.)
ESET, ESET software, ESET logo, ESET.com, NOD, NOD32, AMON, PERSPEKT, VIRUS RADAR, VÍRUSOVÝ RADAR, VIROVÝ RADAR, ThreatSense, ThreatSense.Net®, AntiThreat and/or other products or services of ESET mentioned here, are trademarks and registered trademarks of ESET Other product and company names mentioned herein may be trademarks or trade names of their respective owners.
The brothers, who were arrested more than two weeks after the incident upon returning to O’Hare International Airport from an overseas trip, reportedly laid out for investigators how they worked with Smollett to carry out the alleged hoax attack as they were on the cusp of being charged. They said Smollett paid them $3,500 to carry out the alleged fake assault.
“Moreover, while he filed his lawsuit in the state of Virginia, California law applies to this case and it outlines steps to demand corrections for the benefit of any individual who feels he or she has been libeled. In the over 10 months since the winery article appeared, Mr. Nunes has not once availed himself of the statute by writing to the Fresno Bee to demand that it publish a correction to any statement made about him.
Identify evidence and witnesses. The parties in a lawsuit have the right to request copies of documents in each other’s possession or control in a process called “discovery.” In discovery, you can also request that the other party answer questions, either orally or in writing. If you request a document and the other side claims not to have it, research whether or not they have destroyed it.
Litigation was the pathway to the freedom to marry in many states. It often takes a judge to challenge prevailing assumptions (and even prejudice) that political decision-makers such as legislators or voters may be more unwilling to overcome. Early on, we won in state courts, first in Hawaii in the 1990s, then in Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, and Iowa. Later, we won in federal court, first in California, then in Utah, Oklahoma, and beyond, all the way up to the Supreme Court. In total, 25 of our final state victories (aside from the 13 final states we won at the U.S. Supreme Court) came through judicial rulings – 5 in state court and the rest in federal court. Most of these court wins came through our movement’s legal arm – the American Civil Liberties Union, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Lambda Legal, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights – while a significant share were initiated by private attorneys and assisted by growing numbers of law firms eager to join in the progress. Several of these victories, though, were stripped away by political attack, and most of them would not have happened had we not built momentum in public understanding and even the politics of the marriage debate, creating the climate for the courts to rule in our favor and ensure that the public and elected officials would accept the outcome.
There was a study conducted in the Supreme Court Economic Review that shows why litigation financing can be practical and beneficial to the overall court system and lawsuits within the court. This study concluded that the new rules that were set for litigation financing actually did produce more settlements. Under conservative rules, there tended to be fewer settlements, however under the older rules they tended to be larger on average.
Support legal teams with “friend-of-the-court” briefs: Amicus briefs (“friend-of-the-court” briefs) can be filed by groups that seek to expand on legal teams’ arguments or bring an additional perspective to the conversation. During marriage legal cases, state and national partners often came together to line up robust amici briefs, and as marriage work shifted overwhelmingly to the courts in 2014, a significant amount of work involved enlisting signers. Hand-in-hand with our legal advocacy organizations Freedom to Marry worked to enlist signers who could demonstrate most powerfully that America was ready for marriage nationwide. This included Republican officials, faith leaders, businesses, first responders, and mayors. During these court cases, we generated media and public discussion by highlighting the numbers and prominence of signers on amicus briefs, and putting forward their business/public health/faith, etc., case for ending marriage discrimination.
American terminology is slightly different, in that the term "claim" refers only to a particular count or cause of action in a lawsuit. Americans also use "claim" to describe a demand filed with an insurer or administrative agency. If the claim is denied, then the claimant, policyholder, or applicant files a lawsuit with the courts to seek review of that decision and participates in the lawsuit as a plaintiff. In other words, the terms "claimant" and "plaintiff" carry substantially different connotations of formality in American English, in that only the latter risks an award of costs in favor of an adversary in a lawsuit.
His lawyer said he reckoned he would win his lawsuit and get the money if they ever got started on the trial; but then there was ways to put it off a long time, and Judge Thatcher knowed how to do it And he said people allowed there'd be another trial to get me away from him and give me to the widow for my guardian, and they guessed it would win this time.
A lawsuit may involve dispute resolution of private law issues between individuals, business entities or non-profit organizations. A lawsuit may also enable the state to be treated as if it were a private party in a civil case, as plaintiff, or defendant regarding an injury, or may provide the state with a civil cause of action to enforce certain laws.