The Legal Information Institute (LII) is a non-profit, public service of Cornell Law School that provides no-cost access to current American and international legal research sources online at law.cornell.edu. The organization is a pioneer in the delivery of legal information online. Founded in 1992 by Peter Martin and Tom Bruce, LII was the first law site developed on the internet. LII electronically publishes on the Web the U.S. Code, U.S. Supreme Court opinions, Uniform Commercial Code, the US Code of Federal Regulations, several Federal Rules, and a variety of other American primary law materials. LII also provides access to other national and international sources, such as treaties and United Nations materials. According to its website, the LII serves over 30 million unique visitors per year.
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.
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.
AALL and chapter volunteers researched primary legal materials in the 50 states plus District of Columbia to determine if online legal materials are trustworthy and preserved for permanent public access. This collection brings together information from AALL's National Inventory of Legal Materials and updates, the Preliminary Analysis of AALL’s State Legal Inventories, the 2007 State-by-State Report on Authentication of Online Legal Resources and the 2009-2010 State Summary Updates.
The climate response team is made up of senior university administrators who take complaints from students via an online portal that include everything from derogatory comments made on Facebook to student organizations participating in traditions that could be perceived as insensitive. Since September 2017, it has investigated more than 100 reports of "expressions of bias" in posters, fliers, social media, whiteboards and verbal comments, among others, according to the nonprofit's data. The lawsuit says these investigations can result in formal discipline for incidents that include "wide swaths of protected expression."
Whatever your case is about, I can't emphasize enough for you to take a morning off from work to go watch some cases in court. You'll eliminate some fear of the unknown, you'll start to see that attorneys go through a similar set of procedures that you are just as capable of performing yourself, and you'll get a feel for how to talk to the judge and those who might be in the same room as you.
I’m not sure we did capture all the possible cases. The highly publicized cases, like DACA and the travel ban, are obvious. Nobody seems to keep some sort of master list of everything else. So Deanna and I began to track them down using a variety of sources. We wound up with the number 63, which even since we wrote the piece has increased to about 68.
Local Lawyers: Atlanta Lawyers | Boston Lawyers | Chicago Lawyers | Dallas Lawyers | Denver Lawyers | Houston Lawyers | Indianapolis Lawyers | Las Vegas Lawyers | Los Angeles Lawyers | Miami Lawyers | New York City Lawyers | Orlando Lawyers | Phoenix Lawyers | San Diego Lawyers | San Francisco Lawyers | Seattle Lawyers | Canada-based Lawyers
Software is provided exclusively to end-users for the usage. This usage is in accordance with the License Agreement. ESET and/or its respective suppliers expressly prohibit any Software reproduction and/or spreading that is not in accordance with License Agreement. Such action is expressly prohibited by law. Everybody who breaks the License Agreement risks the civil and criminal penalties and risks fort litigation, in which ESET will demand adequate compensation and reparation for the legal rights violation.
Whether you have been sued, or are planning to sue, you can win your case at various stages of the litigation. You must understand the law as well as the applicable procedural rules. You will win a case if you can show that your opponent missed a filing deadline, has no legitimate cause of action, spoiled or destroyed evidence, or doesn’t have strong enough evidence to win at trial.
If, upon review of your case information, the attorney determines that you have a very strong case and that State’s case may be weak, one option is to fight the case by going to trial. The decision to go to trial is always the client’s decision. Depending on the charge and the jurisdiction, this may mean a bench trial, meaning a single judge presides and makes a decision as to your guilt or innocence, or a jury trial, meaning a jury of usually 12 people decides guilt or innocence. A trial usually takes quite a bit of time to be scheduled – in North Carolina a felony trial may take as long as a year or more schedule and in others it may take two years or even more. This is based on the severity of the crime you’ve been charged with and how busy the court calendar is.
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.
Aimed at professionals active in the legal information community this topical journal provides invaluable information for all those involved in the provision of legal information in the academic and professional environments. Published quarterly, and with an extensive current awareness section, a regular international developments column and coverage of management issues, Legal Information Management is the international journal for legal information professionals everywhere.
It is now official: Conservative Judge Brian Hagedorn has defeated liberal Judge Lisa Neubauer (pictured) in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court election. Neubauer conceded on Wednesday in a very close race, where Hagedorn won by 6,000 votes despite being the underdog. This result is a significant reversal from 2018 when the conservative Judge Michael Screnock lost by 12% to the liberal (now Justice) Rebecca Dallet. More importantly, this election was a flip from blue to red. The state Supreme Court result not only has significant consequences for policy in Wisconsin, but it is an important signifier heading into 2020.
The best cases are the ones that aren’t cases yet. This means that charges have not yet been pressed. If you know that you have committed a crime or you have been contacted by law enforcement investigating a crime, you are in a good position because it means evidence is still being gathered and a warrant has not yet been issued. This is usually the best and most important time to hire a criminal defense attorney.
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.
I have been reading Fight your Ticket about California laws for years and don't know what I would do without it. It has helped me win in court and know just what to ask the cop giving the ticket. It helps research and I recommend these books. Now my grand niece is getting her license and does not live in CA so I picked this up for her. I hope she reads it, it really helps get a handle on interactions with the police when you get stopped.
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.
Some jurisdictions, notably the United States, but prevalent in many other countries, prevent parties from relitigating the facts on appeal, due to a history of unscrupulous lawyers deliberately reserving such issues in order to ambush each other in the appellate courts (the "invited error" problem). The idea is that it is more efficient to force all parties to fully litigate all relevant issues of fact before the trial court. Thus, a party who does not raise an issue of fact at the trial court level generally cannot raise it on appeal.