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. 
Produce and air television ads to showcase overarching messages and powerful messengers. One powerful way to generate earned media and drive the narrative while a court case is pending is by airing a television commercial highlighting a poignant story or a powerful messenger. During federal court consideration of lawsuits in the Mountain West, we aired a television spot featuring retired U.S. Senator Alan Simpson speaking about the western and Republican values that were important to him and how they led him to support the freedom to marry.  In Tennessee, we aired a spot featuring a gay Navy officer who had just served in Afghanistan and yet couldn’t marry his partner in his home state. In Texas, through our Texas for Marriage campaign, we featured the voices of non-gay police officers standing beside a gay colleague in support of his freedom to marry. For each of these, we did relatively small media buys, with the goal of getting  coverage of the spot on television news and in print.  Because the stories were both so powerful, for a relatively small investment in airing the spot, we received solid earned media coverage.  
It does seem crazy, but when you read the cases and the opinions of the judges, including Republican judges, that’s what they found in so many instances. It’s hard to tell whether the agencies knew that they were out on a limb with so many of these decisions and went ahead anyway, or didn’t have competent legal advice. Some experts, as the article said, thought that the failure of some agencies to “do their homework” as they suspended or delayed regulations, for example, showed that they were more interested in making announcements of deregulatory change than in the change itself, so the risk of a judge blocking their actions didn’t concern them all that much. Of course, the agency spokespeople deny that. But lawyers know, for example, that the law sometimes requires public notice and comment when making regulatory change. It’s not hard. It just slows things down. But if they fail to do it, it’s almost a certainty that a judge will object. These are not close calls. Now some of the cases, like the census case (the Commerce Department’s decision to add a citizenship question to the census), are much more complex than what I’m describing and raise deeper issues, which we continue to pursue.
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.[11]

During document production, you or the other side can request any documents that might have anything to do with the case.[9] These documents may have information you can use to help you win the case. If you discover a "smoking gun" – a document that proves the person or company you're suing is liable for your damages – you can point it out and demand the other side settle. You also may be able to file a motion for summary judgment, arguing that certain facts or issues have been settled based on that piece of evidence.[10]
Much of the 25-page court document lays out Valve’s alleged involvement in skins gambling, but the lawsuit also claims skins gambling hurts casinos. In order to operate, Quinault’s casino has to take steps to ensure fair and secure gambling conditions and pay taxes and fees to state and local governments. Valve, the lawsuit argues, doesn’t have to do any of that, creating an alleged unlevel playing field.
One of the first steps that a criminal attorney will take is to request the discovery, or evidence, that the District Attorney plans to use against you. The attorney will then review that discovery to determine the strengths and weaknesses in the evidence against you and the merits of the overall case, and will then determine the risks associated with various defense strategies. Once this analysis is completed, the criminal lawyer will then discuss all of this information with you to determine which next steps to take.
Two-thirds of the cases accuse the Trump administration of violating the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), a nearly 73-year-old law that forms the primary bulwark against arbitrary rule. The normal “win rate” for the government in such cases is about 70 percent, according to analysts and studies. But as of mid-January, a database maintained by the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law shows Trump’s win rate at about 6 percent.
The LII Supreme Court Bulletin is LII's free Supreme Court email-based subscriber and web-based publication service.[17] The Bulletin provides subscribers with two distinct services.[18] The first is a notification service. LII Bulletin emails subscribers with timely notification of when the US Supreme Court has handed down a decision.[19] It also provides subscribers links to the full opinions of those cases on the LII site.[19]
That’s why Freedom to Marry’s strategy – while always building toward a win in the Supreme Court, and very much embracing litigation as a key methodology – was to marshal and invest energy and resources in making as strong a case in the court of public opinion as our advocates and plaintiffs were also making in the court of law. Here’s a look at key tactics we employed to creating the climate to win and hold victories in the courts.

With mediation, you and the other party meet with a neutral third party, who facilitates discussion. The third-party neutral does not decide the case; however, he or she will help the parties find common ground. The mediator may also propose potential ways to resolve the dispute.[16] Mediation can be a cost-effective way of resolving a dispute to your (and the other party’s) satisfaction.


Oakland, CA The District Court for the Northern District of California has approved a settlement in a class action California unpaid wages lawsuit. In the lawsuit, Bisaccia v. Revel Systems, a group of inside sales representatives claim that Revel Systems, Inc. (Revel) failed to pay overtime wages as required under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Under the terms of the settlement, a group of 149 plaintiffs will share a total of $2.75 million.
In civil lawsuits, particularly in  Small Claims Court, you can get a judgment by the Court for money owed you, but you may have great difficulty collecting the money. There are ways the Court can put pressure on the payee, with garnishment or a lien against the property. In these cases, you must be proactive in getting the court to use its power in any legal means necessary to get someone to pay, But, as they say, "you can't get blood from a turnip."
Certain types of cases can only be heard by judges. In many cases, however,either party hasthe right to request that the case be heard by a jury. Most people representing themselves will do better in front of a judge than a jury -- jury trials are more complicated for a variety of reasons, and presenting your case to a judge will make your job quite a bit easier. However, if your opponent requests a jury trial, you will have to deal with a jury, whether you want one or not.
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. 

Initially the defendants appear before Municipal Court Judge Cedric Kerns weekly. The program utilizes incentives and sanctions to encourage behavioral change. Judge Kerns and the YO Court team look at each individual’s progress through the program and develops a treatment plan to address the barriers of each participant. This program has built a strong relationship with community partners and referrals are given to the appropriate community partner and to address the need of the individual defendant. To learn more about Yo Court please view this video.

ESET, spol. s r. o.  (hereinafter “ESET”) and/or its respective suppliers own or can exercise copyright to all software available on these Site(s) (further referred to as “Software“). The Software can be used only in accordance with the end-user license agreement (further referred to as “License Agreement“). License Agreement is supplied together with the Software, or it is a part of it. Software supplied with License Agreement cannot be installed without user's consent with License Agreement.
Buildings Central Campus West Campus North Campus Andrew Dickson White House Bailey Hall Balch Hall Barnes Hall Bradfield Hall Caldwell Hall Computing and Communications Center Comstock Hall Fernow Hall Morrill Hall Rice Hall Risley Residential College Sage Chapel Sage Hall Willard Straight Hall Libraries Art Museum Theory Center Synchrotron Press Botanic Gardens Arboretum Ornithology Lab Dairy Bar Fuertes Observatory Hartung–Boothroyd Observatory Boyce Thompson Institute Cornell Tech
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.

If you have a registered in EEOC's Public Portal, you can submit your request by logging in to your charge account and uploading your request. If you don't have an online charge account, send your request for a Notice of Right to Sue to the EEOC office responsible for investigating your charge and include your EEOC charge number and the names of the parties.
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.[12] 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.
Instead of filing an answer within the time specified in the summons, the defendant can choose to dispute the validity of the complaint by filing a demurrer (in the handful of jurisdictions where that is still allowed) or one or more "pre-answer motions," such as a motion to dismiss. It is important that the motion be filed within the time period specified in the summons for an answer. If all of the above motions are denied by the trial court, and the defendant loses on all appeals from such denials (if that option is available), and finally the defendant must file an answer.
×