Civil procedure Professor Perritt Fall 2017 Model Answer
|
|
- Amberly Melissa O’Connor’
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Civil procedure Professor Perritt Fall 2017 Model Answer Question I A. To establish that the state court has personal jurisdiction over Einmalig, Buford must establish four things: (1) that the state of Maryland has asserted jurisdiction over defendants on facts like these, (2) that this assertion does not violate due process, (3) that Buford has served Einmalig with process as authorized under Maryland law, and (4) that the service of process provides constitutionally adequate notice. Buford will argue that Maryland s long arm statute asserts jurisdiction over Einmalig. The pertinent provisions are section 6 103(b)(1), (2), and, maybe, (3). Entering into a contract with Buford is doing business, and promising to provide leads and scripts to Buford is a contract to supply services in Maryland. If Buford pleads defamation (he has not, in appendix A), then jurisdiction is asserted under paragraph (3), because defamation, unlike breach of contract, is a tort. The other paragraphs are inapplicable because Einmalig is not an insurer, and it does not have a sufficient pattern of activity in Maryland to satisfy (4). Notably, the statute does not require targeting of Maryland or any other mental state by the defendant. Objective conduct touching Maryland is enough. Under section 103 of the long arm statute, he must show that the that his claims arise out of these contacts. The breach of contract claims clearly do; they directly relate to the contacts. If he pleads defamation (he has not in Appendix A) it does not arise directly, but it has a but-for relationship with the contacts; Einmalig would not have smeared him except for their business relationship that went sour. Exercising jurisdiction of the statute, however, is unconstitutional unless Buford can show that exercising jurisdiction over Einmalig satisfies the requirements of Pennoyer v. Neff and International Shoe. None of the Pennoyer factors are present on the facts: service of process on one physically within the borders, consent, attachment of property while within the borders, or domicile. So the only constitutional pathway is International Shoe. International Shoe requires minimum contacts, and Worldwide Volkswagen requires that the contacts be purposeful and targeted to the forum state. Unfortunately for Buford, there is nothing in the facts suggesting that Einmalig targeted Maryland. The ad that Buford found apparently was generally aimed and was just out there on the Internet. 1
2 The website was in German, which is inconsistent with target targeting Englishspeaking Maryland. While Einmalig surely targeted Buford when it began to work with him, there is no indication that Einmalig knew that Buford was in Maryland. It did not have his address. At most, it could have found out that his domain name provider was in Maryland, but there is no evidence that it knew who his domain name provider was. Even if it did, the use of a Maryland domain name provider does not mean that the owner of the domain name is in Maryland. It is unlikely that the assertion of jurisdiction over Einmalig is constitutional. The question does not say how process was served; unless it was served in a way authorized by Maryland law, personal jurisdiction does not exist. Buford should seek a court order under Rule 2 121(c). He will file an affidavit saying that he has attempted to send notice with the summons and complaint attached to the chat room that he had access to, but that he has been cut off. He will also testify in the affidavit that he cannot use usual means of serving process because he does not know where Einmalig is. Thus neither mail nor personal service is possible. He will seek a court order permitting service either by send the summons and complaint by to Einmalig s Internet service provider or domain name service provider identified as in the answer to subquestion (b). This means of serving process should pass muster under Mullane and Green v. Lindsey because it is reasonably calculated under all the circumstances to result in an actual notice. He does not have any other way of giving notice, thus satisfying Mullane, and it is reasonably likely that Einmalig s ISP or domain name provider will pass along notice that it receives, the satisfying Green v. Lindsey. B. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference when I ordered by the court. Rule 26(d) The rules have been interpreted to permit discovery before a complaint is filed in aid of establishing personal jurisdiction. Rule 27 has nothing to do with the situation. The question says the Maryland rules do the same. So Buford must seek a court order. In his motion or petition for that court order he shoud explain that, because he does not know where Einmalig is, he cannot use the typical tools of discovery which require responses from a party. He will seek an order allowing him to submit Rule 34 requests and possibly Rule 30 deposition notices to Einmalig s domain name service provider, accompanied by a subpoena, compelling the service provider to disclose Einalig s address and other contact information. Once he knows Einmalig s address, he can serve process on it via mail or personal service by a suitably authorized officer of wherever I Einmalig is found. He can find Einmalig s domain name service provider by using the "who is command in his web browser or command line interface. 2
3 Until he has obtained approval for this discovery, framing request to Einmalig is a waste of time, because he has no way to communicate them to Einmalig. C. We don't know what bases Einmalig asserted in notice of removal, so our motion to remand must cover all the possible bases. The case is removable to federal court only if the federal court has federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. Buford will argue that no federal question jurisdiction exists because he has not pleaded any federal claims. Although federal issues appear in his claim 3 the outcome of that claim does not depend upon resolving questions of federal law. Breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a question of state law, so deciding federal issues in adjudicating the case are neither essential nor central in importance, and thus the requirements of Merrill Dow and Grable are not satisfied. He has a weaker but still plausible argument that diversity jurisdiction does not exist either. Whether it does is entirely within his control. The parties pretty obviously are diverse. If Buford is a citizen of anywhere, he is a citizen of Maryland, although he can argue that he never changed his domicile to Maryland. But he doesn't have to be a citizen of Maryland as long as he is a citizen of a place different from Einmalig. Einmalig almost certainly is a citizen of Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, or some other place where German is the dominant or one of the major languages. Buford certainly is not a citizen of one of those places, and he is not going to move there before he files his complaint. So the parties are diverse. But appendix A does not contain a request for relief. So Buford has not asked for more than $75,000, and thus the jurisdictional amount requirement is not satisfied. He can make sure that diversity jurisdiction does not exist by asking for less. He may not want to do that, but unless he does, he probably cannot get the case remanded to state court. If federal question jurisdiction is found to exist over claim 3, then supplemental jurisdiction under section 1367 probably exists over claims 1 and 2 because of their close relationship with claim 3. They have a common nucleus of a operative fact. If the diversity jurisdiction exists, it exists over all three claims. D. The doctrine of forum non conveniens allows a court in which venue is authorized to decline to exercise it power when another, more convenient, forum exists. There is no reason that that alternative forum might not be state court. While a forum non conveniens argument usually is made by the defendant in the lawsuit, there is no reason that I know of that it cannot be asserted by a plaintiff opposing exercise of jurisdiction over a removed case. This is a matter for further research to confirm it, however. Any forum non conveniens argument must begin by identifying an alterative forum. If we can make the argument at all in this removal context, the alternative forum is clear: the Maryland state court where we filed the complaint in the first place. Then, we must 3
4 show how the public and private factors suggest litigating there instead of in federal court. The only way the federal court can transfer the case back to state court is to remand it, and the framing of the question says that the federal court has denied the motion to remand. But Buford can seek dismissal without prejudice in federal court and file once again in state court. Notably, in applying the public and private interest factors, a quart considering a forum non conveniens motion must give great weight to the plaintiff s selection of forum. Ordinarily, that is not the alternative forum, but in this case, given removal, the the plaintiff chose the alternative forum in the first place. Most of the private and public factors seem neutral, because both courts are in Maryland and would have only slightly different jury pools. Buford s only argument must be based on the private factor other practical problems and on the public factor, court congestion. He would have to argue that because he is now homeless, getting to federal court in Baltimore is difficult, as opposed to State court, which is much closer. The public interest factor is available only if Buford can show that congestion in federal court is much worse than in state court. We don't know that yet. So Buford s only real argument is based on the inconvenience of federal court as a "practical problem. This arguments is not particularly strong. An hour-and-a-half hour drive is not all that burdensome, and even though Buford is homeless and now boatless, he can he can get a ride to Baltimore with me, his lawyer. While the plaintiff s choice of forum Well the plan is entitled a great weight, it would be inconsistent with the statutory authority for removal to allow plaintiffs choice of state court to trump removal in cases like this. E. Count one almost certain does not satisfy the Maryland pleading rules. Count 2 and 3 probably do. The complaint does satisfy the requirements that each cause of action be set forth in a separately numbered count and that all averments be made in numbered paragraphs. The problem with count 1 is that it does not plead facts establishing each element of a breach of contract claim, although that is required by the Pawlik case. Count 2 and 3, however, do allege that establish all the elements of a breach of contract claim: offer, acceptance, consideration (if it is distinct from offer and acceptance) and breach. The only possible problem with counts 2 and 3 is that their headings do not say, "breach of contract." If a hyper technical application of the rule is warranted by the caselaw, that might make them flawed as well. But in any event, the state court will likely dismiss count 1. The notice pleading rules in federal court are much more flexible, and the complaint almost surely passes muster under Federal Rules 8 and 10. Fraud is not pleaded, so Rule 4
5 9 does not come into play. The only problem is that Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(3) requires a claim for relief. The complaint set forth an appendix A does not contain one. F. Maryland Courts and Judicial Procedure Code section is amended to add at the end thereof the following new paragraph: (7) enters into a business relationship with a Maryland resident via the Internet. Maryland Courts and Judicial Procedure Code is amended by adding at the end there of the following new subsection: (e) when jurisdiction exists under amended section 6 103(7), but the plaintiff is unable to determine the location of the defendant to enable service of process by one of the means set forth in subsections (a) through (c) of the section, service may be made (1) on the defendant s Internet domain name service provider as the defendant s agent, (2) on the Maryland Secretary of State as agent for service of process, or, if neither of these means is feasible, (3) by publication. when process is served under this subsection, any of these recipients of process shall be deemed the defendant s agent under Maryland Rule of Civil Procedure QUESTION II A. Davenport, as an original codefendant (the question refers to Penelope as the other defendant ), can get the entire case dismissed if he can show that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The question is not entirely clear on whether the case is pending in state or federal court. If it is in state court, subject matter jurisdiction almost surely exists, so the question is interesting only if it is pending in federal court. It doesn't matter where the federal court is, it must have a federal question, diversity, or supplemental jurisdiction over every claim in order to decide it. There is no suggestion that the original negligence claim by Tinley involves any issues of federal law, so federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C is lacking. There can't be supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C without an anchor claim, so the question boils down to whether there is diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C Diversity jurisdiction exists only if all plaintiffs are citizens of states from the states of citizenship of all defendants and if the jurisdictional amount of $75,000 is satisfied. Tenley is not going to have any difficulty claiming more than 75,000. Apparently his $80,000 automobile was a total washout, or close to it. His medical bills and pain-and- 5
6 suffering will run into the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in compensatory damages. He can claim punitive damages as well. So Davenport s only serious argument is that both Tinley and Penelope are citizens of Mississippi. If they are, that defeats complete diversity even if Davenport s citizenship is different from Tinley's. Without complete diversity the court lacks diversity jurisdiction over any aspect of the case. Penelope almost certainly is a citizen of Mississippi. Citizenship for federal jurisdictional purposes turns on domicile, a question of state law. Penelope was domiciled in Mississippi when she was born there, she has only been out of the state once, to Memphis, Tennessee, and there is no indication whatsoever that she meant to change her domicile to Tennessee. So her birth domicile remains MS, and thus she is a citizen of MS. Tenley's citizenship is more contestable. He started out with a Florida domicile when he was born there, and he has not changed it to Virginia, because, although he may have the intent to make VA his domicile, there is no indication that he has been there. Domicile requires that one be in a place contemporaneously with an intent to make it one s domicile. So the question resolves to whether Tinley changed his domicile from Florida to Mississippi by moving to Mississippi, undertaking graduate studies there, and registering his car there. The question says he doesn't like Mississippi. If he never liked it, it's unlikely that he formed the intent to make it his domicile changing his residence from Florida to Mississippi and registering his car there are not determinative. Many states require residents to register their vehicles in the state regardless of whether they intend to make it their domicile. Maybe he's just law-abiding as well as literary. Citizenship presents a factual question to be resolved according to the evidence. Davenport right be able to unearth some evidence that Tinley changed his domicile from Florida to Mississippi, even though he doesn't like it, for example, by registering to vote in Mississippi. Conversely Tinley may buttress his argument that he is not a citizen of Mississippi by offering evidence that he has been to Virginia with had the intent to make it his new domicile, which would negate Mississippi citizenship, if it ever existed. What matters is citizenship at the time the complaint is filed, not when the accident occurred. So Tinley might go to Virginia and, while there, declare his intent to make it his domicile, before he files a complaint. Absent such additional evidence uncovered by Davenport or offered by Tinley, diversity jurisdiction exists and Davenport will have to depend on the merits. 6
7 B. Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15, Davenport can amend once as a matter of right if he does so within 21 days after Davenport files its motion to dismiss. After that, he may amend only with the defendants consent or with court approval. It's unlikely that both defendants will consent, but the court almost certainly will approve an amendment. It s early in the litigation process the court is still considering Davenport s motion to dismiss. Leave to amend can't be denied only if the court finds prejudice to one of the other parties. Merely because Penelope and Davenport have begun (if they have; maybe their waiting for the motion to dismiss to be decided before doing anything) to prepare defenses on a negligence claim does not suggest they would be significantly prejudiced by also preparing defenses based on violation of federal safety standards. Assuming the amendment is permissible, it will significantly change analysis of the court s subject matter jurisdiction. It does not, of course, change anything with respect to diversity jurisdiction, but it may introduce a federal question. It certainly does if there is a private right of action conferred by the federal vehicle safety statute and if Tinley pleads it, which is what he is doing with his amended complaint. That's well within the holding of Merrill-Dow. There may be a federal question even if Tinley is not asserting a federal private right of action, under Grable. But then, to establish federal question jurisdiction he must show that resolving the federal issue is necessary to new claim. If he is simply pleading violation of the federal safety standard as a way of establishing negligence per se in a products liability action against Davenport, that is precisely the posture of Merrill-Dow itself, where the Supreme Court found federal question jurisdiction lacking. If your federal question jurisdiction exists over the new claim, it's highly likely that supplemental jurisdiction will extend to the original negligence claim against Penelope and Davenport because both relate to the same occurrence-- the accident--and has at least some common elements: identity of the drivers, their actions, how the braking of the Davenport occurred, damage to the Davenport, injuries to Tinley and Penelope. C. Penelope is entitled to summary judgment because there is no evidence in the record to establish the tort of negligence. Absent the excerpt from the deposition transcript, there is no evidence of fault. Without the evidence she was following only one carlength behind Tinley has offered no evidence that she reached her duty of care. Without the excerpt, there is no evidence that she reached any duty. The only possibility for Tinley to survive summary judgment against him is to show that under the applicable law likely Mississippi--the driver of a vehicle striking another from behind is strictly liable, without proof of fault. That is not likely to be the law of Mississippi. [In fact it is not.] 7
8 8
Mastering Civil Procedure Checklist
Mastering Civil Procedure Checklist For cases originally filed in federal court, is there an anchor claim, over which the court has personal jurisdiction, venue, and subject matter jurisdiction? If not,
More informationCIVIL PROCEDURE PROFESSOR PERRITT FALL, 2011 FINAL EXAMINATION MODEL ANSWER
1 CIVIL PROCEDURE PROFESSOR PERRITT FALL, 2011 FINAL EXAMINATION MODEL ANSWER Question I A. Luke must answer the first question, yes, but he may refuse to answer the second question. He has a very good
More informationTort Reform (2) The pleading specifically asserts that the medical care has and all medical records
Tort Reform 2011 Medical Malpractice Changes (SB 33; S.L. 2011 400) o Enhanced Special Pleading Requirement (Rule 9(j)) Rule 9(j) of the Rules of Civil Procedure now requires medical malpractice complaints
More informationLEGAL GLOSSARY Additur Adjudication Admissible evidence Advisement Affiant - Affidavit - Affirmative defense - Answers to Interrogatories - Appeal -
Additur - An increase by a judge in the amount of damages awarded by a jury. Adjudication - Giving or pronouncing a judgment or decree; also, the judgment given. Admissible evidence - Evidence that can
More informationThe Florida Bar v. Bruce Edward Committe
The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those
More informationLA. REV. STAT. ANN. 9:
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. In this [Act]: (1) Arbitration organization means an association, agency, board, commission, or other entity that is neutral and initiates, sponsors, or administers an arbitration
More informationCalifornia Bar Examination
California Bar Examination Essay Question: Civil Procedure And Selected Answers The Orahte Group is NOT affiliated with The State Bar of California PRACTICE PACKET p.1 Question Copyco, Inc. (Copyco), a
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND R U L E S O R D E R. This Court s Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND R U L E S O R D E R This Court s Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure having submitted its One Hundred Fifty-Second Report to the Court, recommending
More informationPART 6: RESOLVING ISSUES AND PRESERVING RIGHTS
PART 6: RESOLVING ISSUES AND PRESERVING RIGHTS What this Part is about: This Part is designed to resolve issues and questions arising in the course of a Court action. It includes rules describing how applications
More informationMBE Civil Procedure Sample Test Questions
MBE Civil Procedure Sample Test Questions The National Conference of Bar Examiners provides these Civil Procedure sample questions as an educational tool for candidates seeking admission to the bar within
More informationResponding to a Complaint: Maryland
Resource ID: w-011-5932 Responding to a Complaint: Maryland CHRISTOPHER C. JEFFRIES AND STEVEN A. BOOK, KRAMON & GRAHAM, WITH PRACTICAL LAW LITIGATION Search the Resource ID numbers in blue on Westlaw
More informationEXAM NO. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, HASTINGS COLLEGE OF THE LAW FINAL EXAMINATION
EXAM NO. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, HASTINGS COLLEGE OF THE LAW FINAL EXAMINATION CIVIL PROCEDURE () TUESDAY, MAY 16 PROFESSOR AMAR (3 HOURS) I. This is an open-book exam. You may consult any books, notes
More informationacquittal: Judgment that a criminal defendant has not been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
GlosaryofLegalTerms acquittal: Judgment that a criminal defendant has not been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. affidavit: A written statement of facts confirmed by the oath of the party making
More informationNew Jersey False Claims Act
New Jersey False Claims Act (N.J. Stat. Ann. 2A:32C-1 to 18) i 2A:32C-1. Short title Sections 1 through 15 and sections 17 and 18 [C.2A:32C-1 through C.2A:32C-17] of this act shall be known and may be
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE September 15, 2006 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE September 15, 2006 Session DANIEL MUSIC GROUP, LLC v. TANASI MUSIC, LLC, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County No. 05-0761-II Carol
More informationInterrogatories. As I have previously written, interrogatories are one. The building blocks of your client s case. Discovery. by Thomas J.
12 The Journal of the Virginia Trial Lawyers Association, Volume 24 Number 4, 2013 Discovery Interrogatories The building blocks of your client s case by Thomas J. Curcio As I have previously written,
More informationRule Change #2001(16) The Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure Chapter 26. Colorado Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Courts Appendix to Chapter 26
Rule Change #2001(16) The Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure Chapter 26. Colorado Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Courts Appendix to Chapter 26 The following rules are Amended and Adopted as of September
More informationCivil Procedure II Spring J=Jones, S=Smith, SMJ=subject matter juris, pj=personal juris, =plaintiff, ª=defendant
Civil Procedure II Spring 2003 Final Exam Model Professor Fletcher Prosser Question 1 Motion 1 J=Jones, S=Smith, SMJ=subject matter juris, pj=personal juris, =plaintiff, ª=defendant ' 1441 allows removal
More information1. Minor criminal cases and civil disputes are decided in the appellate courts.
Chapter 02 The Resolution of Private Disputes True / False Questions 1. Minor criminal cases and civil disputes are decided in the appellate courts. True False 2. The plaintiff can sue the defendant in
More informationThe Civil Action Part 1 of a 4 part series
The Civil Action Part 1 of a 4 part series The American civil judicial system is slow, and imperfect, but many times a victim s only recourse in attempting to me made whole after suffering an injury. This
More informationCase 3:07-cv Document 38 Filed 12/28/2007 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Case 3:07-cv-00615 Document 38 Filed 12/28/2007 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION DONALD KRAUSE, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:07-CV-0615-L v.
More informationCase 2:05-cv TJW Document 211 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 1 of 11
Case 2:05-cv-00195-TJW Document 211 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION DIGITAL CHOICE OF TEXAS, LLC V. CIVIL NO. 2:05-CV-195(TJW)
More informationRULES OF TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION
RULES OF TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION CHAPTER 0800-02-13 PROCEDURES FOR PENALTY ASSESSMENTS AND HEARING TABLE OF CONTENTS 0800-02-13-.01 Scope
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned of Briefs December 3, 2009
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned of Briefs December 3, 2009 MIN GONG v. IDA L. POYNTER Appeal from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County No. MCCCCVOD081186 Ross H. Hicks, Judge
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE July 12, 2005 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE July 12, 2005 Session RHONDA D. DUNCAN v. ROSE M. LLOYD, ET AL. Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County No. 01C-1459 Walter C. Kurtz,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs June 28, 2013
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs June 28, 2013 RODNEY V. JOHNSON v. TRANE U.S. INC., ET AL. Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County No. CT-000880-09 Gina
More informationNew York Practice: A Defendant s Litigation Guide
New York Practice: A Defendant s Litigation Guide By: Warren S. Koster, Esq. Callan, Koster, Brady & Brennan INTRODUCTION This memorandum will explain the basic tenets of New York Practice from the initiation
More informationCase: 3:13-cv SA Doc #: 47 Filed: 11/03/14 1 of 7 PageID #: 220 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI OXFORD DIVISION
Case: 3:13-cv-00016-SA Doc #: 47 Filed: 11/03/14 1 of 7 PageID #: 220 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI OXFORD DIVISION JOHNNYE H. PASS and FAITH PASS-BASS PLAINTIFFS v. CASE
More informationCONTENTS. How to use the Lake Charles City Court...2. What is the Lake Charles City Court?...2. Who may sue in Lake Charles City Court?...
CONTENTS Page How to use the Lake Charles City Court...2 What is the Lake Charles City Court?...2 Who may sue in Lake Charles City Court?...3 Who may be sued in Lake Charles City Court?...3 What kind of
More informationQUESTION Does the federal court in State A have removal jurisdiction over the case? Explain.
WRITING PROGRAM CIVIL PROCEDURE 33. QUESTION 5 The owner of a rare antique tapestry worth more than $1 million is a citizen of State A. The owner contacted a restorer, a citizen of State B, to restore
More informationRULES OF THE TENNESSEE CLAIMS COMMISSION CHAPTER RULES OF PROCEDURE TABLE OF CONTENTS
RULES OF THE TENNESSEE CLAIMS COMMISSION CHAPTER-0310-1-1 RULES OF PROCEDURE TABLE OF CONTENTS 0310-1-1-.01 Applicability of Tennessee Rules 0310-1-1-.03 En Banc Hearings of Civil Procedure and Correlation
More informationPART III Discovery CHAPTER 8. Overview of the Discovery Process KEY POINTS THE NATURE OF DISCOVERY THE EXTENT OF ALLOWABLE DISCOVERY
PART III Discovery CHAPTER 8 Overview of the Discovery Process The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure regulate civil discovery procedures in the state. Florida does not require supplementary responses to
More informationTohono O odham Rules of Court
Tohono O odham Rules of Court Table of Contents Section 1. General Rules of Procedure Section 2. Rules of Civil Procedure Section 3. Rules of Criminal and Traffic Procedure Section 4. Children s Court
More informationNC General Statutes - Chapter 1 Article 45C 1
Article 45C. Revised Uniform Arbitration Act. 1-569.1. Definitions. The following definitions apply in this Article: (1) "Arbitration organization" means an association, agency, board, commission, or other
More informationStanding Practice Order Pursuant to 20.1 of Act Establishing Rules Governing Practice and Procedure in Medical Assistance Provider Appeals
Standing Practice Order Pursuant to 20.1 of Act 2002-142 Establishing Rules Governing Practice and Procedure in Medical Assistance Provider Appeals TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I--PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS Subpart
More informationNFA Arbitration: Resolving Customer Disputes
NFA Arbitration: Resolving Customer Disputes Contents Why arbitration? 2 What does it cost to arbitrate? 4 What is NFA Arbitration? 6 Glossary of terms 17 National Futures Association (NFA) is a self-regulatory
More informationGLOBAL HUB LOGISTICS, et al., ) VS. ) February 2, ) ) Defendants. ) ) TAMERLANE GLOBAL SERVICES, et al.,) MOTIONS HEARING
Case :-cv-0-gbl-idd Document Filed 0// Page of PageID# IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division GLOBAL HUB LOGISTICS, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Civil
More information[Slide 26 displays the text] Jurisdiction and Other Limits on Judicial Authority
[Slide 26 displays the text] Jurisdiction and Other Limits on Judicial Authority [Narrator] Now in this part of module one, we ll be talking a little bit about the concept of jurisdiction, and also other
More informationLAWS OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO MARRIED PERSONS ACT CHAPTER 45:50. Act 52 of 1976
MARRIED PERSONS ACT CHAPTER 45:50 Act 52 of 1976 Current Authorised Pages Pages Authorised (inclusive) by L.R.O. 1 20.. 1/2006 L.R.O. 1/2006 2 Chap. 45:50 Married Persons Note on Subsidiary Legislation
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. CONSENT OF DEFENDANT SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT
Case 1:08-cv-02167-RJL Document 1-2 Filed 12/12/08 Page 1 of 31 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Commission, 100 F. Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20549,
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D10-661
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2011 ROBERT L. ERDMAN AND CAROL ERDMAN, Appellants, v. Case No. 5D10-661 JONATHAN BLOCH, M.D. AND MELBOURNE INTERNAL,
More informationTorts Tutorial Chapter 6 Joint Tortfeasors
INTRODUCTION This program is designed to provide a review of basic concepts covered in a first-year torts class and is based on DeWolf, Cases and Materials on Torts (http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/~dewolf/torts/text
More information2. In considering whether specific jurisdiction exists, the courts consider: a. Whether the defendant gained benefits and privileges by the contract;
Civil Procedure I. Personal Jurisdiction a. General principals i. A defendant is subject to the personal jurisdiction of his home state, wherever he may be served. The defendant s home state is 1. For
More informationMerchants Automotive Group, Inc. Alpine Limousine Service, Inc., et al. BMW of N. Am., LLC and BMW of Manhattan, Inc. No.
MERRIMACK, SS SUPERIOR COURT Merchants Automotive Group, Inc. v. Alpine Limousine Service, Inc., et al. v. BMW of N. Am., LLC and BMW of Manhattan, Inc. No. 2015-CV-677 ORDER This case arises out of a
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 11, 2011 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 11, 2011 Session SHAVON HURT v. JOHN DOE, ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County No. 09C89 Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr., Judge No.
More informationAmerican Tort Reform Association 1101 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC (202) Fax: (202)
American Tort Reform Association 1101 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 682-1163 Fax: (202) 682-1022 www.atra.org As of December 31, 1999 1999 State Tort Reform Enactments Alabama
More informationVANDERBILT UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW. Civil Procedure (Section B-1) Prof. Lonny Hoffman Spring Semester, 2008
VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW Civil Procedure (Section B-1) Prof. Lonny Hoffman Spring Semester, 2008 Exam Number Tuesday, April 22, 2008 Time: 1:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS All checked
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 118,184 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. JONATHAN EDWARDS, Appellant, MIKE T. LOGAN, Appellee.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 118,184 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS JONATHAN EDWARDS, Appellant, v. MIKE T. LOGAN, Appellee. ATTORNEY GENERAL DEREK SCHMIDT, Intervenor/Appellee. MEMORANDUM
More informationDON T LITIGATE IF YOU DON T KNOW ALL THE RULES
Litigation Management: Driving Great Results DON T LITIGATE IF YOU DON T KNOW ALL THE RULES Chandler Bailey Lightfoot Franklin & White -- 117 -- Creative Avenues to Federal Jurisdiction J. Chandler Bailey
More informationStreamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures
RESOLUTIONS, LLC s GUIDE TO DISPUTE RESOLUTION Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures 1. Scope of Rules The RESOLUTIONS, LLC Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures ("Rules") govern binding
More informationNOS , IN THE. JEFFERDS CORPORATION and CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. JEREMIAH BART MORRIS, Respondent.
NOS. 06-487, 06-503 IN THE JEFFERDS CORPORATION and CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. JEREMIAH BART MORRIS, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the West Virginia Supreme Court
More informationREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 919 SEPTEMBER TERM, LETITIA L. ELLIOTT et al.
REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 919 SEPTEMBER TERM, 1996 LETITIA L. ELLIOTT et al. v. SCHER, MUHER, LOWEN, BASS, QUARTNER, P.A., et al. Moylan, Cathell, Eyler, JJ. Opinion by Cathell,
More informationFiling an Answer to the Complaint or Moving to Dismiss under Rule 12
ADVISORY LITIGATION PRIVATE EQUITY CONVERGENT Filing an Answer to the Complaint or Moving to Dismiss under Rule 12 Michael Stegawski michael@cla-law.com 800.750.9861 x101 This memorandum is provided for
More informationEvidence and Practice Tips By: Joseph G. Feehan and Brad W. Keller Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, P.C., Peoria
Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel Springfield, Illinois www.iadtc.org 800-232-0169 IDC Quarterly Volume 24, Number 1 (24.1.47) Evidence and Practice Tips By: Joseph G. Feehan and Brad W. Keller
More informationRULES GOVERNING THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY RULE 6:4. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE TRIAL
RULES GOVERNING THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY RULE 6:4. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE TRIAL 6:4-1. Transfer of Actions (a) Consolidation With Actions In Other Courts. An action pending in the Special Civil
More informationRobert I, Duke of Normandy. 22 June July 1035
Robert I, Duke of Normandy 22 June 1000 1 3 July 1035 Speak French here! TORQUE WRENCHES TORTURE And yay how he strucketh me upon the bodkin with great force Ye Olde Medieval Courte Speaketh French,
More informationNebraska Civil Practice & Procedure Manual
Nebraska Civil Practice & Procedure Manual TABLE OF CONTENTS Case Analysis, Screening & Preparation...17 I. Introduction: Case Analysis, Screening and Initial Preparation...23 II. Questions of Ethics,
More informationCIRCUIT AND CHANCERY COURTS:
. CIRCUIT AND CHANCERY COURTS: Advice for Persons Who Want to Represent Themselves Read this booklet before completing any forms! Table of Contents INTRODUCTION... 1 THE PURPOSE OF THIS BOOKLET... 1 SHOULD
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION
Case 3:10-cv-00252 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/29/10 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION HUNG MICHAEL NGUYEN NO. an individual; On
More informationCOPYRIGHT 2009 THE LAW PROFESSOR
CIVIL PROCEDURE SHOPPING LIST OF ISSUES FOR CIVIL PROCEDURE Professor Gould s Shopping List for Civil Procedure. 1. Pleadings. 2. Personal Jurisdiction. 3. Subject Matter Jurisdiction. 4. Amended Pleadings.
More informationCOMPREHENSIVE JAMS COMPREHENSIVE ARBITRATION RULES & PROCEDURES
COMPREHENSIVE JAMS COMPREHENSIVE ARBITRATION RULES & PROCEDURES Effective October 1, 2010 JAMS COMPREHENSIVE ARBITRATION RULES & PROCEDURES JAMS provides arbitration and mediation services from Resolution
More informationssessment Flexible Design and Liability John Maiorana ...the need to be flexible is written into documents that are the foundation for highway design.
ommunity Impact ssessment Flexible Design and Liability John Maiorana John Maiorana is a Vice President and General Counsel with the RBA Group. After attending Rutgers College and Seton Hall Law School,
More informationTO REMOVE OR NOT TO REMOVE FEDERAL COURT, VENUE, AND OTHER JURISDICTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
TO REMOVE OR NOT TO REMOVE FEDERAL COURT, VENUE, AND OTHER JURISDICTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Shane A. Lawson, Esq. slawson@gallaghersharp.com I. WHO CAN REMOVE? A. Only Defendants of the Plaintiff s Claims
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CA COA
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2014-CA-00178-COA KIMBERLEE WILLIAMS APPELLANT v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OR LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE GROUP, INC. AND LINDSEY STAFFORD
More informationCONDENSED OUTLINE FOR TORTS I
Condensed Outline of Torts I (DeWolf), November 25, 2003 1 CONDENSED OUTLINE FOR TORTS I [Use this only as a supplement and corrective for your own more detailed outlines!] The classic definition of a
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION MARGARET WARD and TROY WARD, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, v. AMERICAN HONDA
More informationPatent Venue Wars: Episode 5 5th Circ.
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Patent Venue Wars: Episode 5 5th Circ. Law360, New
More informationMassachusetts UCCJA Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 209B
Massachusetts UCCJA Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 209B 1. Definitions. As used in this chapter the following words, unless the context requires otherwise, shall have the following meanings:-- "Contestant", a person
More informationUniform Arbitration Act; Mediation or Arbitration of Trust Instruments; HB 2571
Uniform Arbitration Act; Mediation or Arbitration of Trust Instruments; HB 2571 HB 2571 repeals the Uniform Arbitration Act (UAA) and replaces it with the Uniform Arbitration Act of 2000 (or Revised Uniform
More informationCASE SCENARIO #1. Did the court commit an error in refusing to set aside the default? Even if not, would you have acted differently?
CASE SCENARIO #1 Charles Creditor files an action against Harry Husband and Wendy Wife for a deficiency judgment after foreclosing on property they jointly owned. Harry and Wendy, who have divorced, are
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION
RD Rod, LLC et al v. Montana Classic Cars, LLC Doc. 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION RD ROD, LLC, as Successor in Interest to GRAND BANK, and RONALD
More informationRULES OF SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA PART ONE RULES APPLICABLE TO ALL PROCEEDINGS
RULES OF SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA PART ONE RULES APPLICABLE TO ALL PROCEEDINGS Rule 1:18. Pretrial Scheduling Order. A. In any civil case the parties, by counsel of record, may agree and submit for approval
More informationCivil Procedure II. Final Examination. Winter Essay Answer Outline
Civil Procedure II Final Examination Winter 2006 Essay Answer Outline I. Should federal court have ordered production of Gadget s notes and witness statements? A. Both notes and statements would fall within
More informationCase 5:12-cv FPS-JES Document 117 Filed 05/15/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1973
Case 5:12-cv-00126-FPS-JES Document 117 Filed 05/15/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1973 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA JAMES G. BORDAS and LINDA M. BORDAS, Plaintiffs,
More informationRULES OF TENNESSEE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION CHAPTER PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - CONTESTED CASES TABLE OF CONTENTS
RULES OF TENNESSEE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION CHAPTER 1220-01-02 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - CONTESTED CASES TABLE OF CONTENTS 1220-01-02-.01 Definitions 1220-01-02-.12 Pre-Hearing Conferences 1220-01-02-.02
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION In re: City of Detroit, Michigan, Debtor. Bankruptcy Case No. 13-53846 Honorable Thomas J. Tucker Chapter 9 CITY OF DETROIT
More informationCourt Records Glossary
Court Records Glossary Documents Affidavit Answer Appeal Brief Case File Complaint Deposition Docket Indictment Interrogatories Injunction Judgment Opinion Pleadings Praecipe A written or printed statement
More informationSUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 28 United States Code 1331. Federal question The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the
More informationYou means the associate signing this document and any other person who asserts that associate s rights.
RAYMOUR & FLANIGAN EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION PROGRAM TERMS This Program is a contract between Raymour & Flanigan and you governing how employment-related disputes are to be resolved. It is an essential, required
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE September 19, 2013 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE September 19, 2013 Session KRISTINA MORRIS v. JIMMY PHILLIPS, ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County No. 11C3082 Joseph P. Binkley, Jr.,
More information7.32 COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE: INTERROGATORIES (Approved before 1985) NOTE TO JUDGE
CHARGE 7.32 Page 1 of 9 7.32 COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE: INTERROGATORIES (Approved before 1985) NOTE TO JUDGE The interrogatories selected by the Committee for submission to the jury on the issue of comparative
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE August 16, 2017 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE August 16, 2017 Session 10/19/2017 TRAY SIMMONS v. JOHN CHEADLE, ET AL. Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County No. 15C4276 Mitchell Keith
More informationWILLIAM E. CORUM. Kansas City, MO office:
WILLIAM E. CORUM Partner Kansas City, MO office: 816.983.8139 email: william.corum@ Overview As a trial lawyer, Bill is sought out by national and global companies for his litigation strategy and direction.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 1:15-cv-05617 Document #: 23 Filed: 10/21/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:68 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION THOMAS HENRY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v.
More informationARBITRATION RULES FOR THE TRANSPORTATION ADR COUNCIL
ARBITRATION RULES FOR THE TRANSPORTATION ADR COUNCIL TABLE OF CONTENTS I. THE RULES AS PART OF THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT PAGES 1.1 Application... 1 1.2 Scope... 1 II. TRIBUNALS AND ADMINISTRATION 2.1 Name
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT MEMPHIS February 24, 2015 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT MEMPHIS February 24, 2015 Session CLIFFORD SWEARENGEN v. DMC-MEMPHIS, INC., ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County No. CT-0057-2011 John R. McCarroll,
More informationNo. 49,437-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * Versus * * * * *
Judgment rendered November 19, 2014. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by art. 2166, La. C.C.P. No. 49,437-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * DORIS
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE December 9, 2004 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE December 9, 2004 Session ESTATE OF CLYDE M. FULLER v. SAMUEL EVANS, ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hamilton County No. 98-C-2355 Jacqueline E.
More informationCivil Procedure Basics. N.C. Rules of Civil Procedure 7/6/2010
Civil Procedure Basics Ann M. Anderson N.C. Association of District Court Judges 2010 Summer Conference June 23, 2010 N.C. Rules of Civil Procedure 1A-1, Rules 1 to 83 Pretrial Injunctive Relief 65 Service
More informationRULES OF TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES DIVISION
RULES OF TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES DIVISION CHAPTER 1360-04-01 UNIFORM RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR HEARING CONTESTED CASES BEFORE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES TABLE OF CONTENTS
More informationMontgomery County. a. Child Counsel Appointment Policies and Procedures. b. Standard Appointment Order
Montgomery County a. Child Counsel Appointment Policies and Procedures b. Standard Appointment Order Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland Child Counsel Appointment Policies & Procedures The following
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PATENT CASE SCHEDULE. Answer or Other Response to Complaint 5 weeks
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PATENT CASE SCHEDULE Event Service of Complaint Scheduled Time Total Time After Complaint Answer or Other Response to Complaint 5 weeks Initial
More informationCA DISMISSED. This appeal comes from a judgment in favor of appellee Guy Jones for $134,088 in
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION JOHN B. ROBBINS, JUDGE DIVISION II CA 07-97 SEPTEMBER 26, 2007 REVING BROUSSARD III, et al. APPELLANTS V. GUY JONES APPELLEE APPEAL FROM THE FAULKNER
More information- 4 - APPLICABILITY OF ARBITRATIONS ACT, 1991
www.barryfisher.ca - 2 - INTRODUCTION Up until very recently it was assumed that the only way in which a non-unionized employee could have his or her employment dispute adjudicated upon was either before
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE On-Brief May 29, 2007
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE On-Brief May 29, 2007 CASSANDRA ROGERS v. STATE OF TENNESSEE A Direct Appeal from the Tennessee Claims Commission No. T20060980 The Honorable Stephanie
More informationNC General Statutes - Chapter 150B Article 3A 1
Article 3A. Other Administrative Hearings. 150B-38. Scope; hearing required; notice; venue. (a) The provisions of this Article shall apply to: (1) Occupational licensing agencies. (2) The State Banking
More informationSTREAMLINED JAMS STREAMLINED ARBITRATION RULES & PROCEDURES
JAMS STREAMLINED ARBITRATION RULES & PROCEDURES Effective JULY 15, 2009 STREAMLINED JAMS STREAMLINED ARBITRATION RULES & PROCEDURES JAMS provides arbitration and mediation services from Resolution Centers
More informationCIVIL PROCEDURE ESSAY #5. Morgan additionally asserted the following as damages: Blueprints: $20,000 Land Purchase: $20,000 Grading of Land: $20,000
CIVIL PROCEDURE ESSAY #5. Morgan filed a claim in Federal Court in State A where he had his only residence, stating, inter alia, that Builders, Inc. had breached a contract to build his house. More specifically,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT March 27, 2008 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court ANDREA GOOD, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, FUJI FIRE & MARINE
More informationTennessee Medicaid False Claims Act
Tennessee Medicaid False Claims Act (Tenn. Code Ann. 71-5-181 to 185) i 71-5-181. Tennessee Medicaid False Claims Act -- Short title. (a) The title of this section and 71-5-182 -- 71-5-185 is and may be
More information