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."
It is likewise important that the "plaintiff selects the proper venue with the proper jurisdiction to bring his lawsuit." The clerk of a court signs or stamps the court seal upon a summons or citation, which is then served by the plaintiff upon the defendant, together with a copy of the complaint. This service notifies the defendants that they are being sued and that they are limited in the amount of time of a reply. The service provides a copy of the complaint in order to notify the defendants of the nature of the claims. Once the defendants are served with the summons and complaint, they are subject to a time limit to file an answer stating their defenses to the plaintiff's claims, which includes any challenges to the court's jurisdiction, and any counterclaims they wish to assert against the plaintiff.

There are many reasons to be kind to your paralegal, but a bonus is that the jury will notice. Be nice to the stenographer (who also has the power to make things go your way, or not, in the transcript). And, especially, have a positive relationship with the courtroom clerk. The clerk checks in the jurors every morning, brings them pencils and leads them to the jury room. This person inevitably forms a stronger bond with them than anyone else in the courthouse. If the jurors see that you’re the clerk’s friend, you’re the jurors’ friend by association. If the clerk hates you, the jurors probably will, too.”
Washington state has become a battleground over the legality of online gambling. A landmark ruling last year against the then-parent company of Seattle-based Big Fish Games found that it was facilitating online gambling because the chips in the company’s casual casino games represented a “thing of value” under state law because users can’t play without them.

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.
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.

© 2008–2019 WomensLaw.org is a project of the National Network to End Domestic Violence, Inc. All rights reserved. This website is funded in part through a grant from the Office for Victims of Crime, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Neither the U.S. Department of Justice nor any of its components operate, control, are responsible for, or necessarily endorse, this website (including, without limitation, its content, technical infrastructure, and policies, and any services or tools provided). NNEDV is a 501©(3) non-profit organization; EIN 52-1973408.
Copyright © 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Nolo ® Self-help services may not be permitted in all states. The information provided on this site is not legal advice, does not constitute a lawyer referral service, and no attorney-client or confidential relationship is or will be formed by use of the site. The attorney listings on this site are paid attorney advertising. In some states, the information on this website may be considered a lawyer referral service. Please reference the Terms of Use and the Supplemental Terms for specific information related to your state. Your use of this website constitutes acceptance of the Terms of Use, Supplemental Terms, Privacy Policy and Cookie Policy.
One of the most common things criminal attorneys deal with are clients that have accepted a plea without understanding that plea and now they have changed their minds. Once a plea is accepted, it is extremely difficult to undo. A defense lawyer will be able to thoroughly explain the components of the plea and how it will impact you so that you can make an informed decision as to whether or not you want to accept the plea.
I took the time to watch a recent course produced by Courtroom5 and the great information it gave, and I couldn’t help thinking how I definitely would have turned to Courtroom5 to help with my case had I known about it while my case was going on. Courtroom5 offers a magnificent service that can be very helpful to pro se litigants. I would highly recommend to any pro se who is in need of some help in prosecuting his/her case to turn to Courtroom5.
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.
In no event shell ESET and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortuous action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from the services. 

Paul Bergman is a Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law and a recipient of a University Distinguished Teaching Award. His recent books include Reel Justice: The Courtroom Goes to the Movies (Andrews & McMeel); Trial Advocacy: Inferences, Arguments, Techniques (with Moore and Binder, West Publishing Co.); and Represent Yourself In Court and The Criminal Law Handbook (both with Berman-Barrett, Nolo). He has also published numerous articles in law journals.


Because the vast majority of cases will settle before trial, success often means obtaining a desirable settlement. In negotiating with the other side, try to be flexible in deciding what you can live with. Your concept of a fair deal will be vastly different from the opposing party's numerical figure. While you'll want to drive a hard bargain, both sides are probably going to compromise eventually. Usually, the earlier this happens the better.

It also names specific campus incidents in which it says the university restricted free speech, including a controversial event organized by the university group Young Conservatives of Texas called Catch an Illegal Immigrant, which got scrapped in 2013. The group had planned to have volunteers walk around campus with a label that said "illegal immigrant," and students who "caught" them would win gift cards. Backlash on campus spurred UT to issue a statement saying that if the group carried out the activity they would be "willfully ignoring the honor code."
It does seem crazy, but when you read the cases and the opinions of the judges, including Republican judges, that’s what they found in so many instances. It’s hard to tell whether the agencies knew that they were out on a limb with so many of these decisions and went ahead anyway, or didn’t have competent legal advice. Some experts, as the article said, thought that the failure of some agencies to “do their homework” as they suspended or delayed regulations, for example, showed that they were more interested in making announcements of deregulatory change than in the change itself, so the risk of a judge blocking their actions didn’t concern them all that much. Of course, the agency spokespeople deny that. But lawyers know, for example, that the law sometimes requires public notice and comment when making regulatory change. It’s not hard. It just slows things down. But if they fail to do it, it’s almost a certainty that a judge will object. These are not close calls. Now some of the cases, like the census case (the Commerce Department’s decision to add a citizenship question to the census), are much more complex than what I’m describing and raise deeper issues, which we continue to pursue.
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.

A trial can to be the most risky option for resolving a case. This is because a third party, meaning a judge or jury, is determining your guilt or innocence. Even in the strongest of cases, judges and juries have found defendants guilty in the face of significant reasonable doubt. While you usually have appeal rights of some sort if you feel you are wrongfully convicted, you must be aware when opting for a trial that you are leaving your fate open to someone else’s decision making. This means that if you are found guilty, you are subject to whatever consequence the judge decides upon consistent with the law.
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.
Washington state has become a battleground over the legality of online gambling. A landmark ruling last year against the then-parent company of Seattle-based Big Fish Games found that it was facilitating online gambling because the chips in the company’s casual casino games represented a “thing of value” under state law because users can’t play without them.
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.

Unless otherwise noted, text, images and layout contained in this Web site and in the sites of other RobecoSAM AG companies or their related, affiliated and subsidiary companies are the exclusive property of RobecoSAM AG and/or its related, affiliated and subsidiary companies and may not be copied or distributed, in whole or in part, without the express written consent of RobecoSAM AG or its related, affiliated and subsidiary companies. Permission is granted to print copies of this document, and to display and use this document with a computer solely for personal use.


The brothers, who were arrested more than two weeks after the incident upon returning to O’Hare International Airport from an overseas trip, reportedly laid out for investigators how they worked with Smollett to carry out the alleged hoax attack as they were on the cusp of being charged. They said Smollett paid them $3,500 to carry out the alleged fake assault.
Nathan had been asked by the SEC to hold Musk in contempt over a Feb. 19 tweet where the regulator said he improperly posted material information about Tesla's vehicle production outlook without first seeking approval from company lawyers. The SEC said pre-approval had been a core element of the October 2018 settlement, which resolved a lawsuit over Musk's...

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.
In most systems, the governing body responsible for overseeing the courts assigns a unique number/letter combination or similar designation to each case in order to track the various disputes that are or have been before it. The outcome of the case is recorded, and can later be reviewed by obtaining a copy of the documents associated with the designation previously assigned to the case.
AALL and chapter volunteers researched primary legal materials in the 50 states plus District of Columbia to determine if online legal materials are trustworthy and preserved for permanent public access. This collection brings together information from AALL's National Inventory of Legal Materials and updates, the Preliminary Analysis of AALL’s State Legal Inventories, the 2007 State-by-State Report on Authentication of Online Legal Resources and the 2009-2010 State Summary Updates.
RobecoSAM AG and/or its related affiliated and subsidiary companies are not obligated to monitor any transmission made through the respective Web pages and newsgroups. However, RobecoSAM AG and/or its related affiliated and subsidiary companies have the right, but not the obligation, to monitor any transmission made to and for this Web site. RobecoSAM AG and/or its related affiliated and subsidiary companies may use or disclose information of this site.
The climate response team is made up of senior university administrators who take complaints from students via an online portal that include everything from derogatory comments made on Facebook to student organizations participating in traditions that could be perceived as insensitive. Since September 2017, it has investigated more than 100 reports of "expressions of bias" in posters, fliers, social media, whiteboards and verbal comments, among others, according to the nonprofit's data. The lawsuit says these investigations can result in formal discipline for incidents that include "wide swaths of protected expression."
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. 
In civil lawsuits, particularly in  Small Claims Court, you can get a judgment by the Court for money owed you, but you may have great difficulty collecting the money. There are ways the Court can put pressure on the payee, with garnishment or a lien against the property. In these cases, you must be proactive in getting the court to use its power in any legal means necessary to get someone to pay, But, as they say, "you can't get blood from a turnip."
Nathan had been asked by the SEC to hold Musk in contempt over a Feb. 19 tweet where the regulator said he improperly posted material information about Tesla's vehicle production outlook without first seeking approval from company lawyers. The SEC said pre-approval had been a core element of the October 2018 settlement, which resolved a lawsuit over Musk's...

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. 
Because the vast majority of cases will settle before trial, success often means obtaining a desirable settlement. In negotiating with the other side, try to be flexible in deciding what you can live with. Your concept of a fair deal will be vastly different from the opposing party's numerical figure. While you'll want to drive a hard bargain, both sides are probably going to compromise eventually. Usually, the earlier this happens the better.

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.” 
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.
×