Gillnet Restrictions: In Oregon and Washington, the NSIA was involved in new rules that changed the allocation of Columbia River fish for commercial gillnetters and put in motion a phasing out period of gillnet use on the main channel, shifting the commercial fishing to off-channel hatchery sites. These decisions have led two lawsuits which are taking resources from the NSIA and we need your help to continue this effort.
Women in Need of Change, or WIN Court, is the opportunity for chronic women offenders to invest in themselves and their future. WIN Court is a trauma-responsive court that addresses the behaviors of chronic women offenders arrested in the city of Las Vegas. WIN Court focuses on the individual’s core issues in relationship to trauma and co-occurring mental health behaviors. These traumas contribute to their choices of substance abuse, criminal activity and recidivism. The program offers each individual woman a toolbox to address past traumas in order to move forward to a future of exciting new choices. In a safe environment, the program builds on trust and respect to be able to identify the trauma, employ strategies to normalize the symptoms and manage the related triggers and their reactions. WIN Court addresses chronic women offenders who have amassed misdemeanor offenses within the jurisdiction of the city of Las Vegas change their lives. The participants volunteer to enter into an 18-month to 24-month commitment. The basic requirements may include:
Prepare to defend court victories politically: Winning in court often isn’t enough, as opponents can mount attempts through legislatures or at the ballot to reverse good decisions and otherwise try to delegitimize the win. State constitutional amendments nullified court victories in Hawaii in the 1990s and stripped away the freedom to marry in California in 2008.  Advocates should be completely prepared to fight back against efforts to overturn the rulings, and should also work post-victory to allay concerns, refute falsehoods, and solidify support so as to leverage the win. In Massachusetts, for example, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court victory on the freedom to marry was immediately followed by attempts in the legislature to pass a constitutional amendment repealing the freedom to marry. Without the strong leadership of MassEquality, supported by national groups and funders, and many months of public education work and organizing across the state, the nation’s first marriage state could have been a short-lived triumph. Similarly, in New Mexico in 2013, we prepared for an eventual state Supreme Court ruling on marriage by launching one of our joint campaigns, New Mexico United for Marriage, focused singularly on protecting the ruling, organizing in the legislature, and directing state-wide attention to the joy brought on by the freedom to marry.
At the close of discovery, the parties may either pick a jury and then have a trial by jury or the case may proceed as a bench trial. A bench trial is only heard by the judge if the parties waive a jury trial or if the right to a jury trial is not guaranteed for their particular claim (such as those under equity in the U.S.) or for any lawsuits within their jurisdiction.
Legal cases, whether criminal or civil, are premised on the idea that a dispute will be fairly resolved when a legal procedure exists by which the dispute can be brought to a factfinder not otherwise involved in the case, who can evaluate evidence to determine the truth with respect to claims of guilt, innocence, liability, or lack of fault. Details of the procedure may depend on both the kind of case and the kind of system in which the case is brought - whether, for example, it is an inquisitorial system or a solo
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.
The links in these areas will let you leave ESET’s sites. The linked sites are not under the control of ESET and ESET is not responsible of the contents of any linked site or any link contained in a linked site, or any changes or updates to such sites. ESET is not responsible for web casting or any other form of transmission received from any linked site. ESET is providing these links to you only as a convenience, and the inclusion of any link does not imply endorsement by ESET of these sites or their content.
If the facts in your case are questionable and there is significant risk for conviction at trial and the potential consequences are too high, an alternative to resolving your case by trial is to accept a plea agreement. It is important to have a criminal lawyer, whether hired or court appointed, helping you with your case, but this is especially true if you are considering a plea.
Though the majority of lawsuits are settled before ever reaching a state of trial,[3] they can still be very complicated to litigate. This is particularly true in federal systems, where a federal court may be applying state law (e.g. the Erie doctrine, for example in the United States), or vice versa. It is also possible for one state to apply the law of another in cases where additionally it may not be clear which level (or location) of court actually has jurisdiction over the claim or personal jurisdiction over the defendant, or whether the plaintiff has standing to participate in a lawsuit. About 98 percent of civil cases in the United States federal courts are resolved without a trial. Domestic courts are also often called upon to apply foreign law, or to act upon foreign defendants, over whom they may not even have the ability to even enforce a judgment if the defendant's assets are theoretically outside their reach.
×