NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
|
|
- Isabella Fox
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 NOT FOR PUBLICTION WITHOUT THE PPROVL OF THE PPELLTE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY PPELLTE DIVISION DOCKET NO. JOSEPH MSTROPOLE, v. Plaintiff-Respondent, BENJMIN J. GIUNT, Defendant-ppellant. Submitted September 11, Decided January 15, 2013 PER CURIM Before Judges Lihotz and Kennedy. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Special Civil Part, Passaic County, Docket No. SC Lite DePalma Greenberg, attorneys for appellant (Bruce Greenberg, of counsel and on the brief; Marissa L. uigley, on the brief). Respondent has not filed a brief. Defendant appeals from a Special Civil Part judgment awarding plaintiff $500 as "restitution" for plaintiff's alleged purchase of a trailer from defendant that was never delivered. On appeal, defendant asserts that there was no contract between
2 the parties and, therefore, plaintiff had no "standing" to file suit. We recognize standing is governed by R. 4:26-1, which provides "[e]very action may be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.... " Moreover, "standing involves a threshold determination which governs the ability of a party to initiate and maintain an action before the court. Triffin v. Somerset Valley Bank, 343 N.J. Super. 73, 80 (pp. Div. 2001) (citations omitted). However, this issue, raised now on appeal by defendant, was never formally presented to or addressed by the trial judge, precluding our review. See Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, (1973) (appellate courts generally will decline to consider questions or issues not properly presented to the trial court); Reynolds Offset Co., Inc. v. Summer, 58 N.J. Super. 542, 548 (pp. Div. 1959), certif. denied, 31 N.J. 554 (1960)). More important, as we detail in our opinion, our review of the record convinces us that the trial itself was not fairly conducted. We reverse the judgment because the conduct of the trial judge prevented the parties from fairly presenting testimony, documentary evidence and argument pertaining to their claims and defenses. Moreover, the trial judge's domination of 2
3 the proceedings not only prevented the parties from crossexamining each other and the non-party witness, but also left the factual underpinning of the claims and defenses in doubt. We remand the matter for a new trial and direct that a different judge be assigned to the matter. The record before us is muddled, but it appears that plaintiff filed a complaint in the Small Claims Section of the Special Civil Part, alleging that he paid $1600 to defendant for a trailer that was never delivered to him. 1 The parties appeared without counsel for trial on September 17, It is necessary to recite extensive portions of the record which depict how the trial proceeded. The parties and a witness, nderson Reed, were sworn and the trial judge, after some preliminary observations about obtaining restitution as part of a criminal proceeding, stated to the plaintiff, "let me take your testimony." When plaintiff started to speak, the judge immediately interrupted and asked the following multi-part, leading question: "[y]ou had a relationship with [defendant] and paid him $1,600 for a trailer?" to which plaintiff responded "yes." 1 It appears that the dispute between the parties had initially been the subject of a criminal proceeding. The disposition of that proceeding is not before us. 3
4 The following colloquy then ensued between the judge and plaintiff: order, -- How did you pay, by cash, money Cash. -- check? You paid by cash? Yeah. Through my agent nderson Reed I sent him up there to meet with [defendant] to make the -- to make the payment and the deal. nd you never received the trailer? No. Was that payment actually made to [defendant]? Yes. Was any reason ever given to you as to why you wouldn't receive the trailer? He wanted the $300 rent. When we paid him for the trailer, we told him that I was going to register it and that I would be back for the trailer. pproximately three weeks later I went back for the trailer, and he demanded rent. He wanted $300 rent. nd, you know, that wasn't part of the deal. So I refused to pay rent for a trailer that has been sitting there for years. nd finally he found me as a buyer, and I didn't feel that the rent was due. nd that wasn't part of our deal to pay any rent for the trailer for Did you ask him for the $1,600 to 4
5 -- three weeks of - -- be returned? -- of storage. Pardon? I didn't think that $300 was appropriate for the three weeks that -- that I had been there, paid him, and come back to pick it up. Did you ask him for the return of the money? Well, I -- I did file a complaint in Wanaque. jury? nd that was referred to the grand nd they referred it here. They said that he had problems in Wanaque. No, no, no. I don't want to hear about that. Okay. Now the -- Your Honor, I do indictment that was returned, did it deal specifically with this transaction? Yes. nd he pled guilty? Yes. Your Honor, I -- I -- have the title. So I don't know how he can do anything with the trailer without the title anyway. I -- I have the title, I have the 5
6 registration. Made a good forth (sic) effort to pick... up my trailer. This was followed by the judge asking defendant, "[w]hat would you like to say in response to all this?" Defendant thereupon asked plaintiff "on what day did you come to look at my trailer the first time?" Plaintiff began to respond, but the trial judge immediately interjected and the following exchange took place: THE COURT: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. He answers the questions. You're not going to coach him on it. don't -- time -- MR. MSTROPOLE: Your Honor, I THE COURT: What was the first MR. MSTROPOLE: I don't remember exactly what day. When defendant then attempted to ask plaintiff if he had ever "called" defendant, the trial judge cut the question off and began to ask the defendant questions. What follows is the exchange between defendant and the judge which took place: Wait. Let's get down to the specifics here. Was there any agreement for him to buy the trailer for $1,600? I'm not going to go -- I'm not going to allow you to play a game here of being a lawyer. Okay. I'm not going to play -- 6
7 Let's get to the issue. The issue is that he paid you [$]1,600 for the trailer. bsolutely not. He's got the title. bsolutely not, Your Honor. He -- Then what did you plead guilty to? I plead guilty to a disorderly person. It was -- it was reduced from a third-degree crime down to a DP. nd what was the DP? There are many kinds of DPs? I'll -- I'll give you the copy right now if you'd like. What did you admit to? Let's -- let's get to that. I don't care about the - - the charge -- Okay. Well, first of all then I should say to you that -- that he was not my buyer. He was not the person that actually bought the trailer. It was Mr. Reed. nd that was -- and that I've always stated from day one. It took three years for the Prosecutor to admit that they didn't have a case because Joe Mastropole didn't buy it. It was ndy Reed that bought it. charge. ll right. Okay. Let me see the I -- to? I want to know what did you admit 7
8 I'm going to tell you exactly what I admitted to. Here you go. Can I present these two pieces of documents? Yeah. Give them to the Court Officer. I'll give them to the Court Officer. THE COURT: Is there any kind of written document that evidences this transaction? MR. MSTROPOLE: Your Honor, he signed the bill of sale. Your Honor, I'm not asking for that right now. THE COURT: Wait a minute. You don't control what goes on here, sir. No. But he's talking. Sir, I asked him the question. He responds. You don't interrupt. ll right. What do you think you -- you admitted to in court? That I received $500, but I did not receive it from Mr. Mastropole. Mr. Mastropole and I did not -- No, no, no. -- have any business -- I -- I'll get to your defense here. What did you admit to? When you went before -- That's exactly what I told him. -- Judge Portelli, -- Yes. 8
9 -- before you can plead guilty you have to give a factual basis. What did you tell the Judge you did? nd I'm -- and I'm telling you if you allow me to, sir. I will allow you. Don't be cute. I will -- No. If allow you. Okay. I pleaded that, yes, I took $500 from Mr. Reed. Now I didn't have any business with Mr. Mastropole. nd that's why Mr. Mastropole never got the trailer. Can you tell me why the indictment, which was then reduced to theft and failure -- by failure to make a required disposition of property, is written and it basically says that you failed to -- let me see here how they have it. You purposely did retain certain movable property, namely, money belonging to Joseph Mastropole upon agreement or subject to a known legal obligation to make specified payment or other disposition whether some -- from such property or its proceeds or from his own property to be received or an equivalent amount. nd you did deal with the property obtained as your own and failed to make the required payment or disposition. It specifically has his name in it. Not for the -- That's the charge. It's also got ndy Reed right on top of Joseph Mastropole, Your Honor. Well it says ndrew Reed and/or Joseph Mastropole. 9
10 Well, it's supposed to read ndy Reed. MR. MSTROPOLE: Well, Your Honor -- Your Honor, if I may say I do have a -- Why don't you tell me what happened here? Well, if you'll allow me to present a check that was given to me by the Prosecutor's Office? No. I don't want a check presented by the -- Well, -- First of all, what did the -- the Prosecutor's Office paid you money? Excuse me? You said a check presented to me by the Prosecutor's office. You mean, they gave you a copy of check? That was part of my discovery, yes. ll right. Let me see it. What is it? Just make a proffer. THE CLERK: D-2, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: D-2. (D-2, Copy of $1,600 check, marked for identification) BY THE COURT: What is it? It's a copy of a [$]1,600 [] check, Your Honor. nd it is made out to ndy Reed. It's made out to ndy Reed? 10
11 Yes, it is, sir. THE COURT: Who signed -- who made out this check? MR. MSTROPOLE: My bookkeeper, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. So -- all right. BY THE COURT: Now what's your point? In other words, ndy Reed winds up with $1,600? Well, that's between those two. I've got no business with them. ll right. Well, then why -- why are you telling me? I'm trying to find out what happened between you and Mr. Mastropole. Nothing. Why don't we stick to that. bsolutely nothing. I have no business with -- with Joe Mastropole. I have business with ndy Reed. That's what I'm trying to tell you. The judge then addressed himself to the witness, nderson Reed, and asked him to "tell me what happened here?" Reed responded initially by observing "there's a penalty for perjury" and, after the judge chided him, the judge remarked, "[m]aybe everybody seated at counsel table should... worry about perjury." There followed lengthy questioning of Reed by the judge, after which the judge called upon plaintiff to answer 11
12 additional questions. The judge then turned to defendant and asked him a series of further questions and then returned to plaintiff. During this process, the parties and the witness interrupted frequently with random statements and arguments. fter this process went on for a while, the judge stated, in pertinent part: THE COURT: Look, I can go around and around, and around, and around, and around here, but I'm going to tell you right now, number one, I'm going to find -- because there is a lot of confusion here, and I don't know who to believe, and I -- quite frankly, I don't like what's going on here on either side. But I think that the amount in controversy is going to be reduced to [$]500 and not sixteen [hundred]. That's what we're going to start with. I'm telling you right now. nd, number two, I don't like the way this transaction took place. I don't like that Mr. Reed is doing all the talking. Even here in court he's the one who is the know it all. Everything is between him and Mr. Giunta. I understand why Mr. Giunta doesn't want to do anything initially because he doesn't even know who he sold it to. Mr. Reed is the one who's doing everything. This is what I find. nd, you know, Mr. Mastropole is busy building his houses, which is fine, but how is this individual supposed to know what's going on? fter this statement, the parties continued to speak under oath about the transaction. The judge then concluded: THE COURT: Well, here's what I'm going to do. The only proof that I have before me as far as any transaction is for $500. I 12
13 find this entire transaction to be very shady. I don't like what's going on on either side. nd I'm going to enter a judgment for $500. I do find that $500 made its hands into this individual. Mr. Giunta, I do find that the trailer never came back to Mr. Mastropole. I find that Mr. Mastropole or nderson Reed, or a combination of the two of them, could have been more diligent in picking up the trailer. I don't care what the excuses were. nd at this point I'm only going to enter a judgment for [$]500 because that's the only thing that there is a record of. lthough we assume the judgment was reduced to writing, the record before us does not include a written judgment. The irregular manner in which the trial was conducted denied defendant simple due process and thus requires a reversal of the judgment and a remand for a new trial. The judge essentially asked all the questions, many of which were clearly objectionable, afforded the parties no opportunity for crossexamination, failed to ascertain if either party had additional testimony or evidence to offer, announced a finding and conclusion, and, thereafter, considered what appeared to be assertions of fact or argument by the parties and the witness, before stating his decision. While we understand the difficulties entailed in a bench trial with self-represented litigants, such difficulties cannot justify the manner in which the trial was conducted here. s 13
14 stated by the Court in J.D. v. M.D.F., 207 N.J. 458, 481 (2011), referring to the trial court's role in addressing selfrepresented litigants in a domestic violence case, [M]any are unfamiliar with the courts and with their rights. Sifting through their testimony requires a high degree of patience and care. The pressures of heavy calendars and volatile proceedings may impede the court's willingness to afford much leeway to a party whose testimony may seem disjointed or irrelevant. But the rights of the parties to a full and fair hearing are paramount. judge is authorized to ask questions of witnesses, N.J.R.E. 614, which we review under an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Medina, 349 N.J. Super. 108, (pp. Div.), certif. denied, 174 N.J. 193 (2002). court may examine witnesses to clarify testimony, aid the court's understanding, elicit material facts, and assure the orderly and expeditious conduct of the trial. Ibid. Concerns about the impact of the judge as questioner "are less acute in the context of a bench trial, where judges serve as fact finders and have more latitude in questioning witnesses." State v. Taffaro, 195 N.J. 442, 451 (2008). Nonetheless, even in a bench trial, "a trial judge must take special care to craft questions in such a manner to avoid being perceived as an advocate." Super. 523, 537 (pp. Div. 2011). L.M.F. v. J..F., 421 N.J. "There is a point at which 14
15 the judge may cross that fine line that separates advocacy from impartiality. When that occurs there may be substantial prejudice to the rights of one of the litigants." Ridgewood v. Sreel Inv. Corp., 28 N.J. 121, 132 (1958). We have no doubt that the trial judge was engaged in a good faith search for the truth. We also recognize that in cases involving self-represented parties, the court's involvement as questioner is often required to assist parties in presenting essential facts in support or in defense of a claim. Cf., J.D., supra, 207 N.J. at 481. However, in this case, even before plaintiff had the opportunity to present his case, the judge prematurely and unnecessarily intervened and dominated the examination of the parties and the witness. s the judge began to form conclusions about the facts, he, in effect, assumed the role of advocate in his questioning. In so doing, the judge deprived defendant of a fair trial. lso, a court may not, in the interests of expedition or because it believes sufficient facts have been elicited, fail to afford a party the opportunity to cross-examine a witness. Ibid. lthough the trial judge did not completely refuse to allow the parties to cross-examine each other, his failure to afford such examination was a functionally-equivalent mistake. 15
16 In Peterson v. Peterson, 374 N.J. Super. 116, (pp. Div. 2005), we observed: "Our system is committed to a search for truth within the context of the adversary system. Over the years that system has provided a reliable measure of justice." Graham v. Gielchinsky, 126 N.J. 361, 373 (1991). "trial, although inevitably an adversarial proceeding, is above all else a search for truth," State v. Fort, 101 N.J. 123, 131 (1985), and we have recognized that "[c]ross-examination is the most effective device known to our trial procedure for seeking the truth." Tancredi v. Trancredi, 101 N.J. Super. 259, 262 (pp.div.1968) (quoting First Nat'l Bank of Freehold v. Viviani, 60 N.J. Super. 221, 225 (pp. Div. 1960)). The error is particularly harmful when the denial pertains to the principal witness against the party. Thus, in this matter, the judge's failure to afford defendant an opportunity to cross-examine plaintiff and his witness was error. Without this critical safeguard, "the integrity of the fact-finding process" was compromised because the trial court was unable to fully and fairly assess credibility. Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 736, 107 S. Ct. 2658, 2662, 96 L. Ed. 2d 631 (1987) (quoting Davis v. laska, 415 U.S. 308, 316, 94 S. Ct. 1105, 1110, 39 L. Ed. 2d 347 (1974)); see moresano v. Laufgas, 171 N.J. 532, 557 (2002). We also note other procedural errors adversely impacting the fairness of the proceedings. It was inappropriate for the 16
17 judge to make findings of fact before the trial was complete. The judge should not have considered claims pertaining to the preceding criminal matter without a proper foundation having been laid as to relevance, N.J.R.E. 401, and the absence of undue prejudice, N.J.R.E Further, the judge's procedure did not adequately inform defendant of his opportunity to present his defense case. Moreover, it is unclear that either party had completed the presentation of their case when the judge decided to render his decision. For all these reasons, we vacate the judgment and remand for a new trial. Because the original judge accorded weight to the testimony and may be committed to his findings, upon remand the matter should be assigned to a different judge. J.L. v. J.F., 317 N.J. Super. 418, 438 (pp. Div. 1999). Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction. 17
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as State v. Raines, 2015-Ohio-5089.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State of Ohio, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 15AP-477 (C.P.C. No. 14CR-3827) v. : (REGULAR CALENDAR) Dawn
More information1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 3 DEPARTMENT 9 HON. DENISE MOTTER, COMMISSIONER 4 5 CHRISTINE SONTAG, )
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 3 DEPARTMENT 9 HON. DENISE MOTTER, COMMISSIONER 4 5 CHRISTINE SONTAG, ) ) 6 PLAINTIFF, ) ) 7 VS. ) NO. 1381216 ) 8 WILLIAM
More informationSubmitted January 16, 2018 Decided. Before Judges Ostrer and Whipple.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER NO IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
NO. 29846 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LYLE SHAWN BENSON, Defendant-Appellant APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT
More informationWELLS FARGO BANK, NA dba AMERICA'S SERVICING COMPANY, v. SANDRA CRESPO, NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Plaintiff-Respondent, Defendant-Appellant. PER CURIAM Submitted:
More information2 JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI, et al., ) ) 3 Respondents, ) ) 4 vs. ) No. SC ) 5 STATE OF MISSOURI, et al., ) ) 6 Appellants. )
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI 2 JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI, et al., ) ) 3 Respondents, ) ) 4 vs. ) No. SC 88038 ) 5 STATE OF MISSOURI, et al., ) ) 6 Appellants. ) 7 8 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COLE COUNTY,
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ROBERT LUZHAK, APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
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 informationSTATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT DANE COUNTY Branch 9
STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT DANE COUNTY Branch FILED 0-0-1 CIRCUIT COURT DANE COUNTY, WI 1CV000 AMY LYNN PHOTOGRAPHY STUDIO, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Case No. 1 CV CITY OF MADISON, et al., Defendants.
More informationGerald Lynn Bates v. State of Florida
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 informationSTATE OF NEW MEXICO COUNTY OF DONA ANA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT CV WILLIAM TURNER, Plaintiff, vs.
0 0 STATE OF NEW MEXICO COUNTY OF DONA ANA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT WILLIAM TURNER, vs. Plaintiff, CV-0- ROZELLA BRANSFORD, et al., Defendants. TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS On the th day of November 0, at
More information>> THE NEXT CASE ON THE DOCKET IS GARRETT VERSUS STATE OF FLORIDA. >> WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. >> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, MY NAME IS MEGAN LONG WITH
>> THE NEXT CASE ON THE DOCKET IS GARRETT VERSUS STATE OF FLORIDA. >> WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. >> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, MY NAME IS MEGAN LONG WITH THE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF KANSAS TRANSCRIPT OF SENTENCING HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE CARLOS MURGUIA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ANTHONY RENFROW, Defendant.... APPEARANCES: For the Plaintiff: For the Defendant: Court Reporter: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF KANSAS Docket No. -0-CM
More informationCase 0:13-cr KAM Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2014 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 0:13-cr-60245-KAM Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2014 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 13-60245-CR-MARRA(s) v. Plaintiff,
More informationCOMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : DUSTIN ALAN MOSER, : NO. 425 MDA 2006 Appellant
2007 PA Super 93 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : DUSTIN ALAN MOSER, : NO. 425 MDA 2006 Appellant Appeal from the JUDGMENT of SENTENCE Entered September 15,
More informationCase 2:12-cv WCO Document 16-3 Filed 04/06/13 Page 1 of 25. Exhibit C
Case 2:12-cv-00262-WCO Document 16-3 Filed 04/06/13 Page 1 of 25 Exhibit C Case 2:12-cv-00262-WCO Document 16-3 Filed 04/06/13 Page 2 of 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2008 KA 0845 JOHN S WELLS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2008 KA 0845 STATE OF LOUISIANA VS JOHN S WELLS JUDGMENT RENDERED DEC 232008 ON APPEAL FROM TWENTY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO CA XXXX MB
9708 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 50 2008 CA 040969XXXX MB THE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST COMPANY, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR CHASEFLEX TRUST SERIES 2007-3,
More informationVideo Course Evaluation Form. My Name is: Name of Course: My Street address: Address:
Garden State CLE 2000 Hamilton Avenue Hamilton, New Jersey 08619 (609) 584-1924 Phone (609) 584-1920 - Fax Video Course Evaluation Form My Name is: Name of Course: My Street address: City: State: Zip Code:
More informationDEQUAN SHAKEITH SAPP OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS March 1, 2002 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
PRESENT: All the Justices DEQUAN SHAKEITH SAPP OPINION BY v. Record No. 011244 JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS March 1, 2002 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA In this appeal, we consider
More information5 Plaintiff, 6 Vs. 7 WILLIAM DAVISON, 8 Defendant. 9 / 13 * * * * * * * * 14 DEPOSITION OF MARLIN KNAPP 15 TAKEN AT THE INSTANCE OF THE DEFENDANT
Page: 1 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 2 IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 10 CA 002652 (AW) 3 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 4 AS TRUSTEE FOR RALI 06QS2 5 Plaintiff,
More information5 Plaintiff, 6 Vs. 7 WILLIAM DAVISON, 8 Defendant. 9 / 13 * * * * * * * * 14 DEPOSITION OF MARLIN KNAPP 15 TAKEN AT THE INSTANCE OF THE DEFENDANT
Page: 1 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 2 IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 2010 CA 002652 (AW) 3 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 4 AS TRUSTEE FOR RALI 2006QS2 5 Plaintiff,
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO CI-19 UCN: CA015815XXCICI
1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-015815-CI-19 UCN: 522008CA015815XXCICI INDYMAC FEDERAL BANK, FSB, Successor in Interest to INDYMAC BANK,
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,965 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 117,965 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. CURTIS ANTHONY THAXTON, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION 2018. Affirmed. Appeal from
More informationSTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ROBERT B. FULFORD, IV, N.J. Super. 2002).
STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ROBERT B. FULFORD, IV, N.J. Super. 2002). (App. Div. The following squib is not part of the opinion of the court. Please note that, in the interest of brevity, portions of the opinion
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 111,513. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, WILLIAM F. SCHAAL, JR., Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 111,513 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. WILLIAM F. SCHAAL, JR., Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. An appellate court reviews a district court's ruling on
More information5 v. 11 Cv (JSR) 6 SONAR CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC, et al., 7 Defendants x 9 February 17, :00 p.m.
Case 1:11-cv-09665-JSR Document 20 Filed 03/02/12 Page 1 of 20 1 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 2 ------------------------------x 3 SIDNEY GORDON, 4 Plaintiff, 5 v. 11 Cv.
More informationOn appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. L and Municipal Appeal No
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationENTRY ORDER SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO DECEMBER TERM, 2012
Note: Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal. ENTRY ORDER SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2012-111 DECEMBER TERM, 2012 State of Vermont } APPEALED FROM: }
More informationONTARIO, INC., Appellant, Respondent
0 COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------- ONTARIO, INC., -against- Appellant, SAMSUNG C&T CORPORATION, Respondent. ---------------------------------------- Before: No.
More informationYOU VE been CHARGED. with a CRIME What YOU. NEED to KNOW
YOU VE been CHARGED with a CRIME What YOU NEED to KNOW 1 This booklet is intended to provide general information only. If you require specific legal advice, please consult the appropriate legislation or
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: CIVIL DIV. : PART X RELIABLE ABSTRACT CO.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/09/2016 03:20 PM INDEX NO. 653850/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 211 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/09/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: CIVIL DIV. : PART 61 ----------------------------
More informationSiemens' Bribery Scandal Peter Solmssen
TRACE International Podcast Siemens' Bribery Scandal Peter Solmssen [00:00:07] On today's podcast, I'm speaking with a lawyer with extraordinary corporate and compliance experience, including as General
More information21 Proceedings reported by Certified Shorthand. 22 Reporter and Machine Shorthand/Computer-Aided
1 1 CAUSE NUMBER 2011-47860 2 IN RE : VU T RAN, IN THE DISTRICT COURT 3 HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS 4 PETITIONER 164th JUDICIAL DISTRICT 5 6 7 8 9 ******************************************* * ***** 10 SEPTEMBER
More information1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 3 * * * 4 NORTHEAST OHIO COALITION. 5 FOR THE HOMELESS, et al.
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Page 1 2 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 3 * * * 4 NORTHEAST OHIO COALITION 5 FOR THE HOMELESS, et al., 6 Plaintiffs, 7 vs. CASE NO. C2-06-896 8 JENNIFER BRUNNER,
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 7 August v. Onslow County Nos. 10 CRS CRS JAMES ERIC MARSLENDER
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationHAHN & BOWERSOCK FAX KALMUS DRIVE, SUITE L1 COSTA MESA, CA 92626
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPT 24 HON. ROBERT L. HESS, JUDGE BAT WORLD SANCTUARY, ET AL, PLAINTIFF, VS MARY CUMMINS, DEFENDANT. CASE NO.: BS140207 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SHAWNEE COUNTY, KANSAS DIVISION 6. MARVIN L. BROWN, et al., ) Plaintiff,) )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SHAWNEE COUNTY, KANSAS DIVISION MARVIN L. BROWN, et al., ) Plaintiff,) ) vs. KRIS KOBACK, KANSAS SECRETARY ) OF STATE, ) Defendant.) ) Case No. CV0 ) TRANSCRIPT OF JUDGE'S DECISIONS
More informationCase 3:15-cv HEH-RCY Document Filed 02/05/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID# Exhibit D
Case 3:15-cv-00357-HEH-RCY Document 139-4 Filed 02/05/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 1828 Exhibit D Case 3:15-cv-00357-HEH-RCY Document 139-4 Filed 02/05/16 Page 2 of 6 PageID# 1829 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
More information>> ALL RISE. HEAR YE, HEAR YE, HEAR YE, SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IS NOW IN SESSION. ALL WHO HAVE CAUSE TO PLEA, DRAW NEAR, YOU SHALL BE HEARD.
>> ALL RISE. HEAR YE, HEAR YE, HEAR YE, SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IS NOW IN SESSION. ALL WHO HAVE CAUSE TO PLEA, DRAW NEAR, YOU SHALL BE HEARD. GOD SAVE THESE UNITED STATES, THE GREAT STATE OF FLORIDA,
More informationExceptional Reporting Services, Inc. P.O. Box Corpus Christi, TX
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN GREEN BAY DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) CASE NO: :-CR-00-WCG-DEJ- ) Plaintiff, ) CRIMINAL ) vs. ) Green Bay, Wisconsin ) RONALD H. VAN
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. LISA IPPOLITO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TOBIA IPPOLITO, APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
More informationNOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT ERNEST JEROME NASH, DOC #051575, Appellant, v. Case No. 2D09-3825
More informationEddie Wayne Davis v. State of Florida
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 informationVerdict on Punishment
Verdict on Punishment THE COURT: Let's go on the record 19 again. Let the record reflect that these proceedings are 20 being held outside the presence of the jury and all 21 parties in the trial are present.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT UNION COUNTY PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO
[Cite as State v. Carey, 2011-Ohio-1998.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT UNION COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 14-10-25 v. SHONTA CAREY, O P I N I O N DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
More informationAppendix XXIX-B. Note: Adopted July 27, 2015 to be effective September 1, 2015.
Introductory Note: Appendix XXIX-B Note: Adopted July 27, 2015 to be effective September 1, 2015. The Supreme Court of New Jersey endorses the use of arbitration and other alternative dispute resolution
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 118,864 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 118,864 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. ELIZABETH L. TISDALE, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Sedgwick District
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Plaintiff, ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA HEARING Monday, January 26, 2009
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff, JAMES R. ROSENDALL, JR., HONORABLE AVERN COHN No. 09-20025 Defendant. / ARRAIGNMENT AND
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR A123145
Filed 1/12/11 P. v. Small-Long CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
More informationCase 5:08-cr DNH Document 24 Filed 07/16/09 Page 1 of 29
Case 5:08-cr-00519-DNH Document 24 Filed 07/16/09 Page 1 of 29 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK *************************************************** UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, vs.
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2008
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2008 Opinion filed April 9, 2008. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D07-3251 Lower Tribunal No.
More informationKRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
1 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA 2 GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION 3 CASE NO. 09-49079CA22 4 5 WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, F.S.D. F/K/A WORLD SAVINGS BANK,
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2004
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2004 VALENTINE SEARS, Appellant, v. CASE NO. 5D04-479 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. / Opinion filed December 17, 2004 Appeal
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY. : O P I N I O N - vs - 8/4/2014 :
[Cite as State v. Rivera, 2014-Ohio-3378.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2013-05-072 : O P I N I O N - vs -
More informationCircuit Court for Cecil County Case No. 07-K UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2017
Circuit Court for Cecil County Case No. 07-K-15-000471 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 999 September Term, 2017 DERRICK CARROLL v. STATE OF MARYLAND Woodward, C.J., Friedman,
More informationCase 1:17-cr KBF Document 819 Filed 06/11/18 Page ORDERED. 1 of 8 GUIDELINES REGARDING APPROPRIATE USE OF 302 FORMS IN CRIMINAL TRIALS
Case 1:17-cr-00350-KBF Document 819 Filed 06/11/18 Page ORDERED. 1 of 8 Post to docket. GUIDELINES REGARDING APPROPRIATE USE OF 302 FORMS IN CRIMINAL TRIALS 6/11/18 Hon. Katherine B. Forrest I. INTRODUCTION
More information>>> THE SECOND CASE IS GRIDINE V. THE STATE OF FLORIDA. YOU MAY PROCEED. >> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, I'M GAIL ANDERSON REPRESENTING MR.
>>> THE SECOND CASE IS GRIDINE V. THE STATE OF FLORIDA. YOU MAY PROCEED. >> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, I'M GAIL ANDERSON REPRESENTING MR. SHIMEEKA GRIDINE. HE WAS 14 YEARS OLD WHEN HE COMMITTED ATTEMPTED
More information13 A P P E A R A N C E S :
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 0/0/ :0 AM INDEX NO. / SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY : CIVIL TERM : PART --------------------------------------------x ACCESS INDUSTRIES I INC. l -
More informationSubmitted March 7, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Espinosa and Suter.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH. Petitioner, ) vs. ) Cause No Defendant.
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH MICHAEL RAETHER AND SAVANNA ) RAETHER, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) Cause No. --0-0 DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST ) COMPANY;
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION MICHAEL MEGLINO, JR., and SUSAN MEGLINO, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LIBERTY
More informationBefore Judges Leone and Vernoia. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Gloucester County, Municipal Appeal No
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is only
More informationCase 1:12-cr JTN Doc #220 Filed 04/04/13 Page 1 of 20 Page ID#1769. Plaintiff,
Case :-cr-000-jtn Doc #0 Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 Page ID# IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, No: :cr0 0 0 vs. DENNIS
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 115,296 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 115,296 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. JAYLYN MAURICE BRADLEY, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Sedgwick
More informationReport of the. Supreme Court. Criminal Practice Committee Term
Report of the Supreme Court Criminal Practice Committee 2007-2009 Term February 17, 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A. Proposed Rule Amendments Recommended for Adoption... 1 1. Post-Conviction Relief Rules...
More information>> THE NEXT CASE ON THE DOCKET IS THE CASE OF CLARKE V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. WHAT DID I SAY, CLARKE V. UNITED STATES? >> YEAH.
>> THE NEXT CASE ON THE DOCKET IS THE CASE OF CLARKE V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. WHAT DID I SAY, CLARKE V. UNITED STATES? >> YEAH. >> YOU MAY PROCEED WHEN YOU'RE READY, COUNSEL. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF
More informationArgued November 28, 2018 Decided. Before Judges Koblitz, Currier, and Mayer.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 26, 2004
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 26, 2004 MICHAEL DWAYNE CARTER v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County No. 77242 Richard
More informationKenneth Friedman, M.D. v. Heart Institute of Port St. Lucie, Inc.
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 informationIntroduction How Jurors are Selected Qualifications Exemptions. Your Role As A Juror Sequence of a Trial Petit and Grand Juries
Hand Book for Jurors Introduction How Jurors are Selected Qualifications Exemptions Your Role As A Juror Sequence of a Trial Petit and Grand Juries Payment for Jury Duty Length of Service Dress Attire
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs November 29, 2006
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINL PPELS OF TENNESSEE T NSHVILLE ssigned on Briefs November 29, 2006 STTE OF TENNESSEE v. RUSSELL HOUSE Direct ppeal from the Criminal Court for Sumner County No. CR-599-2004 C.L.
More informationCommittee for Public Counsel Services Assigned Counsel Manual Policies and Procedures. Performance Standards and Complaint Procedures
Committee for Public Counsel Services Assigned Counsel Manual Policies and Procedures Performance Standards and Complaint Procedures SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY CASES These guidelines are intended for use by
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. The above-entitled matter came on for oral
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 0 AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, v. Appellant, KENNETH LEE SALAZAR, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ET AL., Appellees.
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED May 19, 2005 v No. 254007 Wayne Circuit Court FREDDIE LATESE WOMACK, LC No. 03-005553-01 Defendant-Appellant.
More informationNC General Statutes - Chapter 15A Article 89 1
Article 89. Motion for Appropriate Relief and Other Post-Trial Relief. 15A-1411. Motion for appropriate relief. (a) Relief from errors committed in the trial division, or other post-trial relief, may be
More informationA Guide to Giving Evidence in Court
Preparation A Guide to Giving Evidence in Court It doesn't matter whether you have a lot of experience or a little - you may find that the witness box is a lonely place if you are not prepared for it.
More informationArgued September 27, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Alvarez, Nugent, and Geiger.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE A123432
Filed 4/1/10 P. v. Jeter CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. ROBERT J. TRIFFIN, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, LICCARDI FORD, INC., d/b/a THE CAR
More informationDefense Motion for Mistrial
Defense Motion for Mistrial MR. RICHARD C. MOSTY: Your Honor, 11 could we take care of a housekeeping matter? 12 THE COURT: We sure can. Just a 13 moment. 14 All right. Ladies and gentlemen of 15 the jury,
More informationTRAVERSE JUROR HANDBOOK
TRAVERSE JUROR HANDBOOK State of Maine Superior Court Constitution of the State of Maine, as Amended ARTICLE I - DECLARATION OF RIGHTS Rights of persons accused: Section 6. In all criminal prosecutions,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 112,638. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, HENRY SULLIVAN, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 112,638 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. HENRY SULLIVAN, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. A defendant has a constitutional right to be present during critical
More informationCase 2:13-cv RFB-NJK Document 335 Filed 08/14/15 Page 1 of 68
Case :-cv-00-rfb-njk Document Filed 0// Page of Case :-cv-00-rfb-njk Document Filed 0// Page of. I have reviewed the Affidavit of John P. Rohner (the Rohner Affidavit ), filed with the Court on August,
More informationPetition for Writ of Certiorari Denied April 27, 1984 COUNSEL
1 STATE V. WHITE, 1984-NMCA-033, 101 N.M. 310, 681 P.2d 736 (Ct. App. 1984) STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RONNIE VAN WHITE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 7324 COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO 1984-NMCA-033,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT MERCER COUNTY APPELLANT, CASE NO
[Cite as State v. Godfrey, 181 Ohio App.3d 75, 2009-Ohio-547.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT MERCER COUNTY THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, CASE NO. 10-08-08 v. GODFREY, O P I N
More informationWho s who in a Criminal Trial
Mock Criminal Trial Scenario Who s who in a Criminal Trial ACCUSED The accused is the person who is alleged to have committed the criminal offence, and who has been charged with committing it. Before being
More informationHANDBOOK FOR TRIAL JURORS SERVING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS
HANDBOOK FOR TRIAL JURORS SERVING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS Prepared for the use of trial jurors serving in the United States district courts under the supervision of the Judicial Conference
More informationArgued December 20, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Alvarez, Nugent, and Geiger.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN RE:. Case No. 0-.. SHARON DIANE HILL,.. USX Tower - th Floor. 00 Grant Street. Pittsburgh, PA Debtor,.. December 0, 00................
More information1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA 2 CASE NO.: CACE
Page: 1 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA 2 CASE NO.: CACE090039 3 4 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR SASCO 05-WF4, 5 Plaintiff(s), 6 vs.
More informationCASE NO. 1D Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Megan Long, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
JAMES ANTHONY STEVENSON, v. Appellant, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO.
More information1 STATE OF WISCONSIN : CIRCUIT COURT : MANITOWOC COUNTY BRANCH PLAINTIFF, JURY TRIAL TRIAL - DAY 26 5 vs. Case No.
1 STATE OF WISCONSIN : CIRCUIT COURT : MANITOWOC COUNTY BRANCH 1 2 3 STATE OF WISCONSIN, 4 PLAINTIFF, JURY TRIAL TRIAL - DAY 26 5 vs. Case No. 05 CF 381 6 STEVEN A. AVERY, 7 DEFENDANT. 8 DATE: MARCH 17,
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 118,787 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, COY RAY CARTMELL, Appellant.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 118,787 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. COY RAY CARTMELL, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION 2019. Affirmed. Appeal from Butler
More informationARROWHEAD CAPITAL FINANCE, LTD., CHEYNE SPECIALTY FINANCE FUND L.P., et al.
0 0 COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------- ARROWHEAD CAPITAL FINANCE, LTD., -against- Appellant, CHEYNE SPECIALTY FINANCE FUND L.P., et al. Respondents. ----------------------------------------
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA HONORABLE PERCY ANDERSON, JUDGE PRESIDING. Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) Vs. Defendant.
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA HONORABLE PERCY ANDERSON, JUDGE PRESIDING 0 TODD KIMSEY, Plaintiff, Vs. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF TEXAS, Defendant. No. CV - PA REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF STATUS CONFERENCE
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS CINCINNATI INSURANCE CO., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 11-2075-JAR ) EDWARD SERRANO, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S
More informationJames M. Maloney. Attorney at Law Proctor in Admiralty. P.O. Box Bayview Avenue Port Washington, NY April 7, 2014
admitted to practice in New York; New Jersey; United States Supreme Court; U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second and Third Circuits; U.S. District Courts for the District of Connecticut, Northern District
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. JONATHAN LANE and ROBIN LANE, vs. Plaintiffs-Appellants/ Cross-Respondents,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
REL: 06/25/2010 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama A p
More information