Interview questions & Rule 4 defined Prof. Piquant Kaplan University School of Legal Studies By: Lawrence Pelkey 10 interview questions for the plaintiff 1. Tell me what happened on June 27th ‚ 2014 while driving your Dodge automobile in a northwardly direction on Lebanon road? 2. Did you see another vehicle in your lane on this road on June 27th? If so can you identify the vehicle and did you see the driver? 3. What happen after you spotted the
Premium Appeal Judgment Civil procedure
In this negligence case brought by a former tenant Rosetta Taylor‚ the Defendants Vista Views Leasing Properties Inc.‚ d/b/a Park Bluff Apartments move for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim of negligence and breach of duty. The defendants move for summary judgment based on an affirmative pleading of the defense of the statute of limitations. Tex. R. Civ. P. 94; Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.003(a) (West 2002). Defendants contend that the statute of limitations has run and bars any and all
Premium Civil procedure Complaint Plaintiff
CASE BRIEF FOR THE WINDSOR V. STATE OF ALABAMA WINDSOR V. STATE OF ALABAMA 683 So. 2d 1021 (1994) Judicial History: Harvey Lee Windsor was convicted of capital murder under § 13-A-5-40 (a)(2)‚ Code of Alabama 1975. The jury unanimously recommended the death penalty and the trial court accepted the jury’s recommendation and sentenced the appellant to death by electrocution. Windsor then appealed the conviction and sentence to the Court of Criminal Appeals. Facts: Harvey Lee Windsor and Lavon Gunthrie
Premium Court Jury Supreme Court of the United States
IRAC Outline by Team A Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Company vs. Dolinski The defendant appealed the decision by the State of Nevada Trail Court which awarded the plaintiff money for his physical and emotional damages after the plaintiff purchased and consumed part of a Squirt soda which contained a dead mouse‚ hair and dung in the Squirt bottle. In order to hear this case‚ the state of Nevada adopted the doctrine of strict liability (Cheeseman‚ 2013 p. 110). The Supreme Court of Nevada awarded
Premium Law United States Tort
Legal Concepts in Business Managerial Settings LAW 531 January 13‚ 2014 Legal Concepts in Business Management Settings The case Team B chose to study and analyze is Beckman v Match.com. Mary Kay Beckman joined Match.com and dated another Match.com client‚ Wade Mitchell Ridley‚ for a short time. Following the break-up Ridley began harassing Beckman by sending threatening text messages. The harassment escalated to violence and resulted in Ridley attacking Beckman in
Premium Law Common law Civil procedure
Civil Appeal No. KCH-12B-14/4-2012 MALAYSIA IN THE HIGH COURT IN SABAH AND SARAWAK AT KUCHING CIVIL APPEAL NO. KCH-12B-14/4-2012 5 BETWEEN (1) (2 CHAN WON LOONG (WN.KP.661002-06-5405) CHAN SOOK KIN (WN.KP.701211-06-5034) Both of No.22‚ Lo13477‚ Ground Floor‚ Block C Jalan Tun Razak 10 93450 Kuching‚ Sarawak. ... ... AND ... ... ... ... Appellants NG YAN LING (WN.KP.670924-13-6016) No.7‚ Taman Tapang Emas Jalan Sungai Tapang 15 93250 Kuching‚ Sarawak.
Premium Trial Appeal Law
Assignment – Week 3 – Esposito-Hilder vs. SFX case Jennifer Rhodes DeVry University – Keller Graduate School of Management MGMT 520 – Legal‚ Political and Ethical Dimensions of Business Professor William Dillon May 26‚ 2013 1) What is the most “jealousy” protected kind of speech‚ according to the court in this case? (3 points) Answer: According to the court in this case‚ the most jealousy protected speech is that which advances the free‚ uninhibited flow of ideas and opinions
Premium Pleading Complaint Civil procedure
Case Study I by ___________________________: Citation: Gerald K. Adams v Uno Restaurants‚ Inc Rhode Island State Court‚ 2002 794 A. 2nd District 489 Appeal: Gerald K. Adams v Uno Restaurants‚ Inc Rhode Island Supreme Court No. 2000-266 (KC 97 -1005) Facts: On May 20‚ 1996‚ the plaintiff‚ who had been employed by the defendant for several years‚ arrived for his nighttime line cooking shift at the defendant’s Warwick restaurant. Shortly‚ after his shift began‚ the plaintiff noticed
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Civil procedure Jury
The assumption standard does not meet modern pleading standards because it allows plaintiffs to present a claim that is missing an essential element of due process. An initial question is what are modern pleading standards? Pleadings standard in the modern era have become stricter and require plaintiffs to show more than they might have in the past. In two cases‚ Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly ‚ the Supreme Court expanded the scope of pleading requirements. The Supreme
Premium Pleading Plaintiff Supreme Court of the United States
Brief # 1-Circuit City Stores‚ Inc(Defendant) V. Mantor(Plantiff) Procedural History A year after Circuit City‚ Inc terminated Mantor’s employment he brought a civil action in state court alleging twelve causes of action. Circuit City petitioned the district court to compel arbirtration‚ and the distict court granted circuit citys motion to compel arbitration. Mantor appealed‚ argueing that the arbitration process was unforecable because it was unconsiable Issue Was the arbitration contract
Premium Contract Arbitration Civil procedure