Another key aspect was that Judge Neubauer tried to position herself as a moderate and independent judge, despite being very connected to the Democratic Party and Planned Parenthood. When voters were informed of her connections to socialist policies and infanticide-supporting groups, it helped Hagedorn. Our organization, American Majority Action, saw this as we went door to door and spoke to voters in real time. We focused on voters in seven counties across the state. Our survey results showed a 10+% shift to Hagedorn over the final two weeks as more voters were informed of Neubauer’s radical ties. In places where we knocked on doors, we saw votes shift by 15% or more from their 2018 totals. In Oostburg, where we spoke with  hundreds of voters, we saw Hagedorn receive 361 more votes than Screnock in 2018. This happened in communities all across the state. Face-to-face communication is the best way to win over voters in any election, and given the unfair attacks by liberals in this case, it proved particularly effective.
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 
ESET and/or its respective suppliers, if they guarantee the Software at all, they guarantee it only in accordance with License Agreement. If not stated otherwise, ESET and/or its respective suppliers declare, that they provide the Software “as is” without warranty of any kind, including warranty of appropriateness on specific purpose and warranty of not breaking other’s legal rights. The above exceptions do not break cogent legal assignments about damage incurred.
The appeal is a review for errors rather than a new trial, so the appellate court will defer to the discretion of the original trial court if an error is not clear. The initial step in making an appeal consists of the petitioner filing a notice of appeal and then sending in a brief, a written document stating reason for appeal, to the court. Decisions of the court can be made immediately after just reading the written brief, or there can also be oral arguments made by both parties involved in the appeal. The appellate court then makes the decision about what errors were made when the law was looked at more closely in the lower court. There were no errors made, the case would then end, but if the decision was reversed, the appellate court would then send the case back down to the lower court level. There, a new trial will be held and new information taken into account.
New Orleans: Thousands of patients who took Xarelto have settled, through multi-district litigation, with Johnson & Johnson and Bayer for three quarters of a billion dollars. Plaintiffs allege that the manufacturers marketed the drug to physicians to prevent blood clots, but failed to inform them of Xarelto side effects, which could cause life-threatening complications such as internal bleeding, stroke and death.
Jay Reeves practiced law in North Carolina and South Carolina. Over the course of his 35-year career he was a solo practitioner, corporate lawyer, legal editor, Legal Aid staff attorney and insurance risk manager. Today he helps lawyers and firms put more mojo in their practice through marketing, work-life balance and reclaiming passion for what they do. He is available for consultations, retreats and presentations.
Definitely don't make your litigation decisions for vindictive reasons. You'll only end up hurting yourself. Besides generating excessive litigation expenses, your health and happiness will suffer. If you look honestly in the mirror and realize that your motivation is spite or revenge, it's in your own best interests to find a way to settle or otherwise end the case.
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.

Jay Reeves practiced law in North Carolina and South Carolina. Over the course of his 35-year career he was a solo practitioner, corporate lawyer, legal editor, Legal Aid staff attorney and insurance risk manager. Today he helps lawyers and firms put more mojo in their practice through marketing, work-life balance and reclaiming passion for what they do. He is available for consultations, retreats and presentations.
“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.
But these attacks backfired and motivated the conservative base. They saw that the attacks on Hagedorn’s school were in effect imposing an unconstitutional religious test: that you cannot be a Christian and a judge. These groups were functionally persecuting Hegedorn for his religious beliefs. And whether voters held those same beliefs or not, they didn’t fall for the bigoted attacks. When voters heard about this, they were upset and motivated to take action. The conservative grassroots went out and knocked on doors, texted friends and family members, and delivered more votes for Hagedorn.  

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.  

However, the students and their parents suing UT and other schools allege in their complaint that "each of the universities were negligent in failing to maintain adequate protocols and security measures in place to guarantee the sanctity of the college admissions process, and to ensure that their own employees were not engaged in these type of bribery schemes."


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.
×