Ensure that all media moments get maximum media coverage. Oftentimes, state LGBT groups simply didn’t have the capability to shape an opportunity for the press, pitch the story, and secure solid coverage in print and broadcast media. As a result, Freedom to Marry created an in-house capacity to do just that. We’d work with local organizers and attorneys to shape opportunities and maximize likelihood of coverage. In certain states, like Wyoming, this resulted in several strong, front-page stories in the state’s most important newspaper as we rolled out a list of prominent Republicans and clergy who were in support of the freedom to marry. We’d ensure that signers onto amicus briefs who we knew were newsworthy were available to speak to the press, sometimes holding media calls with key amici and other times offering exclusive stories to key outlets. And we’d work closely with the legal teams, local reporters covering the legal cases, and editorial boards to ensure they had access to attorneys and plaintiffs at key moments (deadlines for filing briefs, lead-up to oral arguments, etc.), had the chance to ask questions, and understood our side of the case. And in every situation, once we’d secure a news story, positive editorial, or powerful broadcast piece, we’d amplify it through our Digital Action Center.
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.
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.
Also, at any time during this process from the filing of the complaint to the final judgment, the plaintiff may withdraw the complaint and end the whole matter, or the defendant may agree to a settlement. If the case settles, the parties might choose to enter into a stipulated judgment with the settlement agreement attached, or the plaintiff may simply file a voluntary dismissal, so that the settlement agreement is never entered into the court record.
A little respect goes a long way in the courtroom, particularly when you are representing yourself. Address the judge as "your honor," not as "Judge Smith" or "Mr. Smith." Try your best to be polite to your opponent, not demeaning or petty. Showing respect for people and procedures in the courtroom will help you gain the respect of the judge, which will make your day in court a more pleasant experience.
When a final judgment is entered, the plaintiff is usually barred under the doctrine of res judicata from relitigating any of the issues, even under different legal theories. Judgments are typically a monetary award. If the defendant fails to pay, the court has various powers to seize any of the defendant's assets located within its jurisdiction, such as:
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
5. Be like Clint Eastwood. “Look out for the jurors in the box. If Juror No. 3 is having a coughing fit, suggest a break or ask the judge if the juror can have a cup of water. Bless sneezes. An attorney who represents the National Enquirer told me about a trial in which the tabloid was sued by Clint Eastwood. During the actor’s testimony, an elderly juror sneezed. Eastwood stopped in the middle of his sentence and turned to the juror, meeting her rheumy brown eyes with his piercing blue ones. ‘God bless you, ma’am,’ he said. As she melted, the attorney for the magazine knew he’d lost the case.”
“Take-Two can confirm that the present-day Pinkerton Consulting and Investigation company has withdrawn its claims against Red Dead Redemption 2, and Take-Two will not continue legal action against Pinkerton. Red Dead Redemption 2 is a work of fiction set in the late 1800s that references historical entities active during that time,” a spokesperson for Take-Two told The Verge. Pinkerton didn’t immediately reply to a request for comment.
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. Mediation can be a cost-effective way of resolving a dispute to your (and the other party’s) satisfaction.
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.
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.
At a news conference Friday, Foreign Minister Wang Yi applauded Huawei and its chief financial officer for filing lawsuits. — Josh Chin And Chun Han Wong, WSJ, "Beijing Applauds Huawei for ‘Refusing to Be Victimized Like a Silent Lamb’," 8 Mar. 2019 Shandy Media, which runs three YouTube channels with more than 2.5 million subscribers across the channels, filed a lawsuit in June claiming a breach of contract over an advertising deal, ultimately costing the channels more than $100,000. — Julia Alexander, The Verge, "YouTube creators blindsided by major network’s collapse," 5 Dec. 2018 But where the feds chose to make peace, several states went to war and 19 states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit attempting to block the settlement and seeking a restraining order on the site's files. — David Grossman, Popular Mechanics, "Defense Distributed Is Selling 3D Printed Gun Files—Through the Mail," 28 Aug. 2018 Over the past few years, there have been many accusations, lawsuits, and settlements between indie designers and fast fashion conglomerates over alleged copyright infringements. — Alyssa Hardy, Teen Vogue, "Imitation In Fashion is a Huge Problem, But It's Probably Not Going Anywhere," 13 Mar. 2019 The appeal argues, as did the initial failed lawsuit, that, by using the SDSU name, Friends of SDSU violated state election law and education code. — Jennifer Van Grove, sandiegouniontribune.com, "SoccerCity continues legal action against SDSU West," 13 July 2018 A year after the inaugural Pokemon Go Fest in Chicago disappointed thousands of players and incited a class-action lawsuit, the festival is back for a second go-round. — Ally Marotti, chicagotribune.com, "Pokemon Go Fest is back and ready for the crowds after disappointing thousands last year," 12 July 2018 The lawsuit, filed in March, started with two families. — Keith Bierygolick, Cincinnati.com, "Addicted, abused and unable to count: a federal lawsuit about damaged kids in Warren County," 12 July 2018 The lawsuit, along with on-going Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, has turned up hundreds of internal documents on the matter. — Lucas Laursen, Fortune, "Why Monsanto Could Soon Get Hit With a Flood of Cancer-Related Lawsuits," 11 July 2018
It would have taken six or seven months to get exact numbers. But every expert we talked to agreed that the volume was much higher for the Trump administration. The question then became why. As I wrote in an earlier story, when the losing streak started, it’s kind of like relationships. When one or two don’t work out, you can plausibly blame the other people. When the numbers mount, you have to think, maybe the problem is me, that is, maybe I’m doing something wrong.
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.
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.
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.
I finally decided to invest in the program and start to learn "How to Win in Court"! Your program saved me. Learning the rules of court make a difference! The HOA dropped the case. Thank you for everything! I now can start my life over after 10 years of unfounded harassment from greedy people who don't care! The only regret is I did not order your program sooner. ... Becca C.
As we interviewed experts on the subject, including former Justice Department officials who keep track of these things, we realized that these numbers were extraordinary. No one had an exact count comparing, say, the Obama administration’s record in court after two years with the Trump administration. But as we researched the subject, we found studies estimating the average “win rate” for administrations in the courts was somewhere around 70% whereas the Trump administration appeared to be losing at least 70% of the time.
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
During the 18th and 19th centuries, it was common for lawyers to speak of bringing an "action" at law and a "suit" in equity. An example of that distinction survives today in the text of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. The fusion of common law and equity in England in the Judicature Acts of 1873 and 1875 led to the collapse of that distinction, so it became possible to speak of a "lawsuit." In the United States, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1938) abolished the distinction between actions at law and suits in equity in federal practice, in favor of a single form referred to as a "civil action."