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.
In almost all situations, a negotiated solution to a dispute is quicker, less expensive and more private than litigating in court. Often, judges require litigants to attempt to reach agreement using a trained facilitator called a mediator before they will be allowed to move forward to a courtroom trial. Take full advantage of the available opportunities for mediation. Cooperate fully with the mediator's requests, and see if it's possible to arrive at a negotiated deal that both you and the other side can live with.

Federal investigators say William "Rick" Singer, who pleaded guilty Tuesday to money laundering, racketeering, tax evasion and other charges, took in about $25 million from 2011 to 2018 to bribe college coaches and create fake athlete profiles, some with staged photographs. In exchange, coaches would designate his clients’ children as recruited athletes to make their admissions easier.
Substantial assistance is affectionately known as snitching. While it has a bad rap, it is an extremely useful tool when dealing with criminal cases. If you are not yet charged with a crime and are being investigated, providing substantial assistance can actually prevent you from being charged in some cases. If a warrant cannot be prevented with substantial assistance, charges can often be minimized and/or consequences can be reduced, often significantly.
After a final decision has been made, either party or both may appeal from the judgment if they believe there had been a procedural error made by the trial court. It isn't necessarily an automatic appeal after every judgment has been made, however, if there is a legal basis for the appeal, then one has the right to do so. The prevailing party may appeal, for example, if they wanted a larger award than was granted. The appellate court (which may be structured as an intermediate appellate court) and/or a higher court then affirms the judgment, declines to hear it (which effectively affirms it), reverses—or vacates and remands. This process would then involve sending the lawsuit back to the lower trial court to address an unresolved issue, or possibly request for a whole new trial. Some lawsuits go up and down the appeals ladder repeatedly before final resolution.
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.
The Las Vegas Municipal Court Mental Health Court is designed to help people with mental illness who are struggling to stay out of the criminal justice system. To qualify for the program participants must be diagnosed with a mental illness such as, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder or posttraumatic stress disorder. 
Are you facing a legal issue, or just looking for more information about a specific legal topic? FindLaw's Learn About the Law section is the perfect starting point. Learn About the Law features informational articles about a wide variety of legal topics, as well as specific information about subjects such as how to hire an attorney and understanding your state's unique laws.

I'd also like to mention for those of you who are looking for Child Support help, this is not a good book for that. It has a tiny section on Child Support, then leaves you hanging. This may be because laws vary so much, but I thought I'd at least point it out. The book is more for general concepts, so the info falls short once you begin specializing in certain subject matters.
During your trial, you'll probably give your own testimony, question witnesses (both those who support you and those who support your opponent), and present arguments about why you should win the case. To keep track of the questions you want to ask, the points you want to make in your argument, and the facts you have to prove to win the case, put together a trial notebook. You can use a simple three-ring binder with tabs for each section. For help putting together your notebook, seeRepresent Yourself in Court, by Paul Bergman and Sara Berman (Nolo).

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.” 
American terminology is slightly different, in that the term "claim" refers only to a particular count or cause of action in a lawsuit. Americans also use "claim" to describe a demand filed with an insurer or administrative agency. If the claim is denied, then the claimant, policyholder, or applicant files a lawsuit with the courts to seek review of that decision and participates in the lawsuit as a plaintiff. In other words, the terms "claimant" and "plaintiff" carry substantially different connotations of formality in American English, in that only the latter risks an award of costs in favor of an adversary in a lawsuit.
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.
In arbitration, the parties submit their case to an arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators, who will decide for one side or the other, like a judge in a courtroom. Although there are many different forms of arbitration, arbitration typically resembles a trial. Each party has the opportunity to present witnesses and introduce evidence.[17] You may be represented by an attorney.
The court may be unwilling to enter a default judgment. But you can effectively win your case anyway. You can ask the court to prevent the other party from offering any evidence on the topic. For example, if the party’s defense is that you sent an email agreeing to a change in a contract, but that party destroyed the email, then the judge can prevent the party from arguing that you ever agreed to the change.

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.
The official ruling of a lawsuit can be somewhat misleading because post-ruling outcomes are often not listed on the internet. For example, in the case of William J. Ralph Jr. v. Lind-Waldock & Company[4] (September 1999), one would assume that Mr. Ralph lost the case when in fact, upon review of the evidence, it as found that Mr. Ralph was correct in his assertion that improper activity took place on the part of Lind-Waldock, and Mr. Ralph settled with Lind-Waldock.[5]
×