STATEMENT OF THE CASE The matter currently comes before the court on Petitioner Elizabeth Hamilton and counsel’s appeal from the 2nd Circuit award of sanctions under 28 U.S.C § 1927 (2012) for attorney’s fees to Respondent Randall’s Plumbing Supply. (J.A. 8). The initial action was brought by the Petitioner in the Southern District of New York alleging she was wrongfully terminated and seeking to recover against Respondent. (J.A. at 4.) Petitioner is represented by the law firm Sullivan & Hart
Premium Law Civil procedure Appeal
Schedule A 1. I am the defendant in this action and have personal knowledge of the following. 2. On December 1‚ 2014‚ the plaintiff loaned me $4000.00 pursuant to a promissory note of the same date. Under the terms of the note‚ the entire amount as well as interest at a rate of 12% per annum‚ commencing December 1‚ 2014‚ was due in full on March 1‚ 2015. Interest continues to accrue at the same rate until such time as all amounts are paid in full or judgment is obtained. A true copy of the promissory
Premium Debt Jury Civil procedure
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON 3RD FLOOR‚ OMBUDSMAN BLDG.‚ AGHAM ROAD‚ DILIMAN‚ QUEZON CITY MARCELINO N. RAMOS‚ Complainant OMB-L-C-10-0020-A -versus- For: Violation of R.A. No 3019 ARNOLD C. MARAMAG‚ ET. AL.‚ Respondent/s‚ x-------------------------------------------------x MARCELINO N. RAMOS‚ Complainant OMB-L-A-10-0030-A -versus- For: Violation of R.A. No 6713
Premium Pleading Complaint Civil procedure
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR DAVIDSON COUNTY‚ TENNESSEE DALE M‚ ROEHNIG‚ a Minor‚ By JAMES J. ROEHNIG‚ Father and Next Friend; LINDA F. ROEHNIG‚ Mother and Next Friend‚ Plaintiffs‚ vs. No. HERMAN A. SHULMAN Defendant. MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT WHEREFORE‚ the Plaintiffs sue the Defendant and demand a jury to try this case. The Plaintiff should be awarded Twenty-two Thousand Dollars ($22‚000). Both‚ the Plaintiffs and Defendant were
Premium Judgment Civil procedure Plaintiff
Atkins v. Peak‚ 514 N.E. 2d 850 (1987) Decision by Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Facts: On March 20‚ 1982‚ plaintiff Marybeth Atkins sustained serious injuries while skiing at Jimmy Peak Ski Resort. On December 5‚ 1984 plaintiff Marybeth Atkins sued defendant Jimmy Peak. Plaintiff alleged that her injuries were caused by defective ski equipment she had rented from the rental facility on the premises. She further alleged that the defendant failed to inspect ski equipment and the failure
Premium Complaint Pleading Injury
Promoters‚ as defined in Twycross v Grant (1877) 2 CPD 469‚ are persons who involved in the incorporation of a company. And the common law has extended the scope of “promoter” further in Tracy v Mandalay Pty Ltd (1953) 88 CLR 215. In this case‚ the High Court held that the promoters are not just these persons who take an active part in the formation process‚ but also these who profits from the operation of the company with a passive role. Applying this doctrine to the case study‚ Alicia can
Premium Fiduciary Stock market Civil procedure
Case Name‚ Citation‚ and Court: TRACO‚ INC.‚ A THREE RIVERS ALUMINUM COMPANY‚ Appellant v. ARROW GLASS CO.‚ INC.‚ Appellee Appeal No. 04-90-00382-CV COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS‚ Fourth District‚ San Antonio Key Facts Traco Inc is an aluminum company that supplies pre-engineered aluminum and glass sliding doors and windows. Arrow Glass Company is a subcontractor who initially brought suit against Traco on the theories of promissory estoppel and negligence for Traco’s failure to supply aluminum
Premium Law Jury Appeal
Michelle Vandeprool March 10‚ 2013 SPD 616 IEP Case Study Review Hurry v. Jones Having reviewed the case Hurry V. Jones 734 F.2d 879 (1st Cir. 1984)‚ at first reading of the case and with my novice awareness of the law I am seriously concerned as to why this ever went to court. IDEA and the constitution of the United States guarantee that students will receive a free public education no matter what their handicaps. The District should have provided some method by which
Premium Education Lawsuit Dispute resolution
According to Gopal Sri Ram in the case of Low Lee Lian v Ban Hin Lee Banking‚ the second category where the ‘cause to the contrary’ might be established is where the chargor could established that the chargee had failed to meet the conditions precedent for the right to seek order for sale. The first circumstances where the aggrieved person can say that the chargee fails to meet the conditions to seek the order for sale is when the statutory notice of demand served was defective or improper.
Premium Plaintiff Civil procedure Defendant
EN BANC [G.R. No. L-9396. August 16‚ 1956.] MANILA MOTOR COMPANY‚ INC.‚ Plaintiff-Appellee‚ vs. MANUEL T. FLORES‚ Defendant-Appellant. BENGZON‚ J.: Facts: In May 1954‚ Manila Motor Company filed in the Municipal Court of Manila a complaint to recover from Manuel T. Flores the amount of P1‚047.98 as chattel mortgage installments which fell due in September 1941. Defendant pleaded prescription:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary 1941 to 1954. The complaint was dismissed. On appeal‚ the Court of
Free Law Civil procedure Appeal