In most cases, the EEOC can file a lawsuit to enforce the law only after it investigates and makes a finding that there is reasonable cause to believe that discrimination has occurred, and is unable to resolve the matter through a process called "conciliation." The EEOC has discretion which charges to litigate if conciliation efforts are unsuccessful, and ultimately litigates a small percentage of all charges filed. When deciding whether to file a lawsuit, the EEOC considers factors such as the strength of the evidence, the issues in the case, and the wider impact the lawsuit could have on the EEOC's efforts to combat workplace discrimination. Congress also gave individuals the right to file a lawsuit in court.
Specifically, it names portions of the undergraduate catalogue, handbook of operating procedures and nondiscrimination policy that ban verbal harassment, including threats, insults and personal attacks based on a person's race, religion, gender, age and other personal characteristics, as well as portions of university and residence hall policies that prohibit uncivil behavior and harassment.
Cornell’s Legal Information Institute is celebrating Constitution Day by publishing the first publicly-available web version of the Congressional Research Service’s Constitution Annotated, a non-partisan publication that helps readers appreciate how Americans’ collective understanding of our governing principles has changed throughout our history on timely issues such as the scope of presidential power, limits on free speech, or the right to bear arms.  Read More Here 
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. 
Oakland, CA: A Northern California owner and operator of two horse training facilities--Portola Valley Training Center in Menlo Park and Gilroy Gaits in Hollister, doing business as EWC & Associates Inc.—has been reigned in by federal court and ordered to pay $1,270,683 to 30 employees for several work visa program violations and California labor law violations.
Habeas Corpus submitted for Son over a year ago, through NLA.....After serving almost three years for a "victimless Crime", with Habeas Corpus being ignored. Son will be released on 12/14/16....My question is ........He has about $6,000.00 in fines and his Driver's License from a different State is being held for blackmail until bogus fines are paid.....HOW CAN HE GET RESTITUTION OR FREEDOM FROM PAYING THESE FINES?
RobecoSAM AG and its related affiliated and subsidiary companies can not guarantee that the hyperlinks set out on the sites will be accurate at the time of your access. Moreover, the sites pointed at by hyperlinks are developed and possibly maintained by persons over whom RobecoSAM AG or its related affiliated and subsidiary companies have no control. We cannot and do not monitor the sites linked to our pages on the Internet. Accordingly, RobecoSAM AG and/or its related affiliated and subsidiary companies assume no responsibility for the content of any sites referenced to by any hyperlink or otherwise. RobecoSAM AG and/or its related, affiliated and subsidiary companies believe that their making hyperlinks available to publicly accessible Web pages and newsgroups is legally permissible and consistent with the common, customary expectations of those who make use of the Internet.
Eventually, I found my sweet spot, talking to jurors as I would to my mother-in-law: a smart, empathetic woman I loved and admired and who brought out the best side of me. Think about someone in your life such as this. Stephen King writes his books toward an imagined ‘ideal reader.’ Make your closing argument toward an ‘ideal juror’ who you respect and like and who brings out the best in you. If you’re not sure you’re hitting the right tone, try to practice your opening on your own mother-in-law. The advice you get from a nonlawyer can be eye-opening.”
Oakland, CA: A Northern California owner and operator of two horse training facilities--Portola Valley Training Center in Menlo Park and Gilroy Gaits in Hollister, doing business as EWC & Associates Inc.—has been reigned in by federal court and ordered to pay $1,270,683 to 30 employees for several work visa program violations and California labor law violations.	

However, it is often more convenient to refer to cases – particularly landmark and other notable cases – by a title of the form Claimant v Defendant (e.g. Arkell v Pressdram). Where a legal proceeding does not have formally designated adverse parties, a form such as In re, Re or In the matter of is used (e.g. In re Gault).[1] The "v" separating the parties is an abbreviation of the Latin versus, but, when spoken in Commonwealth countries, it is normally rendered as "and" or "against" (as in, for example, Charles Dickens' Jarndyce and Jarndyce). Where it is considered necessary to protect the anonymity of a natural person, some cases may have one or both parties replaced by a standard pseudonym (Jane Roe in Roe v. Wade) or by an initial (D v D). In titles such as R v Adams, however, the initial "R" is usually an abbreviation for the Latin Rex or Regina, i.e. for the Crown. (For an explanation of other terms that may appear in case titles, see the Glossary of legal terms.)
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.
The Las Vegas Municipal Court offers the Habitual Offender Prevention & Education (HOPE) Court. It is an alternative approach to sentencing that offers repeat offenders structured programs to try to help them rebuild their lives. The court has been featured in the local media because of its success. The target goal of HOPE Court is to decrease instances of criminal activity committed by an increasing large group of offenders who repeatedly consume large dollar amounts of city resources because they repeatedly end up back on the streets—loitering; being picked up again and again by police officers; back in city jail; back in court; and back in front of the judge. HOPE Court clients are indigent; they are not able to self-pay.
As often as possible (as we did with the plaintiffs in Texas, Mark Phariss & Vic Holmes and Cleo & Nicole Dimetman-DeLeon) Freedom to Marry would work with private legal teams or our movement partners to write in-depth profiles and stories about the plaintiffs involved in the legal cases. By spotlighting their story in this way, we were able to extend the reach of the case and allow thousands more to connect with the personal reasons behind fighting for the freedom to marry.
A federal judge struck down the Donald Trump administration’s plan to require some people to work for their Medicaid benefits. Another judge halted Trump’s plan to open Arctic waters to drilling. Yet another ordered an end to what critics said was the administration’s efforts to encourage an end run around the Affordable Care Act. All in the span of about a week.
David Brown practices law in the Monterey, California area, where he has represented both landlords and tenants in hundreds of court cases -- most of which he felt could have been avoided if both sides were more fully informed about landlord/tenant law. Brown, a graduate of Stanford University and the University of Santa Clara Law School, also teaches law at the Monterey College of Law and is the author of Fight Your Ticket in California, Beat Your Ticket and others.
ESET and/or its respective suppliers make no representation about the suitability of the information contained in the Documents and related graphics published as part of the services for any purpose. All such Documents and related graphics are provided “as is” without warranty of any kind. ESET and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all warranties and conditions of merchantability, whether expressed, implied or statutory, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. 
Cornell’s Legal Information Institute is celebrating Constitution Day by publishing the first publicly-available web version of the Congressional Research Service’s Constitution Annotated, a non-partisan publication that helps readers appreciate how Americans’ collective understanding of our governing principles has changed throughout our history on timely issues such as the scope of presidential power, limits on free speech, or the right to bear arms.  Read More Here 
Tell the story behind the litigation: At the heart of litigation efforts are stories of injustice to real people.  Our campaigns have sought to use the emotional resonance of the injustice of real stories as crucial ways to make our case and grow support.  Edie Windsor in the DOMA case was a compelling figure – and with a smart media strategy behind her, her story became a face of the injustice of DOMA and the need to dismantle it once and for all.   While the media loves covering the ins and outs of the court process and politics, what moves hearts and minds are people’s actual stories. It’s certainly wise to elevate the story that’s being discussed in the litigation.  It’s also wise to identify and amplify similar stories of injustice in the state and across the country similar to the story being considered in court.   
Take-Two and its subsidiary Rockstar filed the suit in January, striking back at a cease-and-desist notice from Pinkerton, which argued Red Dead Redemption 2 had infringed on its trademark. The publisher wanted a court to rule that its use of the Pinkerton name — as part of a game that emphasizes historical accuracy — was fair use. But GameDaily.biz notes that the suit was dropped today, apparently ending the dispute.
“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.
Focus field organizing on creating media moments: Litigation-related field efforts should focus on creating media moments that demonstrate support, highlight harms, and create a climate for victory.  Freedom to Marry worked with state organizations in litigation states to organize groupings of supporters that we knew would be newsworthy—Florida First Responders for the Freedom to Marry, Texas Faith Leaders for the Freedom to Marry, etc. Another tactic that created a media moment was launching petitions urging state attorneys general to drop their defense of anti-marriage laws (we’d pursue this only after consultation with the litigation team). The petitions – which always ended with an in-person drop-off featuring children of same-sex couples, adorably wrapped petitions, and families who needed the freedom to marry – were a creative way to build online buzz for the court cases, give supporters a way to get involved with the legal case, and earn some strong media attention that underlined the overarching messages of the campaign.  We’d look to identify the most compelling personal stories that we thought might impact the public.  Additionally, we’d organize Town Hall meetings as a focus point to gather supporters and provide a platform for newsworthy supporters and people with compelling stories.   
The lawsuit from Quinault Nation, which owns and operates Quinault Beach Resort & Casino in Ocean Shores, Wash., alleges that Valve has facilitated the use of textured digital weapons, known as “skins,” in games such as Counter Strike: Global Offensive as collateral in online betting through third-party sites. The lawsuit argues that through so-called “skins gambling” Valve has “subjected Washington citizens to scam, unsafe and unfair gambling.”
Lethal Take of Sea Lions: One of the most frustrating things you can face when you have a salmon or steelhead on the line, is a sea lion taking your catch. We have been directly involved in a successful lawsuit against the U.S. Humane Society to support the ODFW plan to use force against these problem predators. This is both an ESA issue and a human safety issue for sport anglers.
The information and opinions contained on this web site constitute neither a solicitation, nor a recommendation, nor an offer to buy or sell investment instruments, or to engage in any other kind of transaction. None of the products or services described on this web site are available, nor will any of the prospectuses about these products or services be distributed, to persons in the UK or any other jurisdiction where the provision of these products or services would run counter to local laws and regulation.
It's also important to remember that your attorney understands the litigation process in a way that you don't. While you're a foreigner in the legal realm, your lawyer lives there. So, it's worth paying careful heed to your lawyer's advice. If you don't understand something, ask probing questions. However, always keep in mind that your lawyer has extensive professional training and experience in these matters.
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.
However, it is often more convenient to refer to cases – particularly landmark and other notable cases – by a title of the form Claimant v Defendant (e.g. Arkell v Pressdram). Where a legal proceeding does not have formally designated adverse parties, a form such as In re, Re or In the matter of is used (e.g. In re Gault).[1] The "v" separating the parties is an abbreviation of the Latin versus, but, when spoken in Commonwealth countries, it is normally rendered as "and" or "against" (as in, for example, Charles Dickens' Jarndyce and Jarndyce). Where it is considered necessary to protect the anonymity of a natural person, some cases may have one or both parties replaced by a standard pseudonym (Jane Roe in Roe v. Wade) or by an initial (D v D). In titles such as R v Adams, however, the initial "R" is usually an abbreviation for the Latin Rex or Regina, i.e. for the Crown. (For an explanation of other terms that may appear in case titles, see the Glossary of legal terms.)
Judge Hagedorn executed his campaign plan, delivered his message to the voters and withstood withering attacks from the left and the media. The left attacked him for starting a Christian school and for calling Planned Parenthood a “wicked organization.” Planned Parenthood went on to spend over $120,000 to try to defeat him. As a result, business groups, afraid of backlash, decided to stay out of this race, clearly intimidated by the most radical elements of the political left. Private polling showed Hagedorn down by nearly double digits and the political experts predicted a big loss for him. At one point the groups on the left were outspending those on the right by a 14-to-1 margin, as Eric Holder and liberals eyed a flip of the conservative leaning court.
Your theory must also be based on the law. For example, if you are accused of deliberately crashing into someone’s car, your theory of the case may be that the victim was negligent when she backed into the road. Unfortunately, the plaintiff’s negligence will not relieve you of liability if you deliberately hit her. Therefore, your “theory of the case” could instead be that you didn’t deliberately hit her but only negligently did, or that she deliberately backed into you.
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]
×