Identify evidence and witnesses. The parties in a lawsuit have the right to request copies of documents in each other’s possession or control in a process called “discovery.” In discovery, you can also request that the other party answer questions, either orally or in writing. If you request a document and the other side claims not to have it, research whether or not they have destroyed it.
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). 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.)
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.
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.
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.
The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in federal court in California, is seeking class-action status and is the latest development in a scandal involving celebrities and other wealthy parents who federal authorities say sought to have their children admitted into universities by bribing athletic coaches and having other people take tests for their children.
Many people presume that judges issue rulings in court based simply on the facts at hand, without public opinion playing any role at all. However, history tells us that how judges read laws and constitutions very much reflects where public opinion is (or, at least, what they think the public will accept). Leading up to the final Supreme Court marriage victory, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in an interview that “there hasn’t been any major change…in which there wasn’t a groundswell among the people before the Supreme Court put its stamp of approval on the inclusion in the equality concept of people who were once left out.”
Though the majority of lawsuits are settled before ever reaching a state of trial, 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.