Bradley v. American Smelting & Refining Co.,
|
|
- Stewart Neal
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Bradley v. American Smelting & Refining Co., 709 P. 2d 782 (Wash. 1984) Case Analysis Questions CA Q. 1 What court decided this case? The Washington Supreme Court. CA Q. 2 Is this an appeal from a lower court decision? HOW did this case even come to be decided by this court? This case did NOT come to the Washington Supreme Court as an appeal from a decision from a lower court. Instead, the decision of the Washington Supreme Court in this case was written to respond to a specific Certified Question that was sent to that Court from the U.S. federal District Court (sitting in the Western District of the state of Washington). What is a certified question? A certified question is a formal request that is made by one court to another court, usually in a different jurisdiction, asking for that court s opinion on a question of law on some issues that is unclear or unsettled. Why would one court ever ask another court (especially one in a different jurisdiction) for an opinion on any question of law? This is a federal court, sitting in the State of Washington. In this case, in order to decide the dispute that is before it, the federal court must apply Washington law. [NOTE: Go back and review the Response to CA Q. 2 for the Shaw v. Brown & Williamson case as to the application of the Erie doctrine in federal court.] Apparently, the requirements for distinguishing between actions for the tort of trespass to land and the tort of nuisance under Washington law were either unclear or in conflict. Thus, in order for the federal court to resolve the dispute in the case before it, 1
2 that court needed to know exactly what the law of Washington was in regard to this distinction, so the court issued a formal request to the Washington Supreme Court (by certifying THREE specific legal questions to that court for resolution). These three questions are shown on page 40 of the edited opinion in the Casebook. [NOTE: You should also notice that these same three questions raise legal issues similar to those addressed by the Oregon Supreme Court in the Amphitheaters and Martin cases.] CA Q. 3 WHAT is the effect (for purposes of establishing legal precedent) of the Washington Supreme Court s decision in the Bradley case? Even though there is no actual case pending before the Washington Supreme Court in Bradley, when the Court decided to RESPOND to the federal court s request by issuing a formal judicial opinion as to these three certified questions, the Bradley decision BECAME legal precedent in the State of Washington. Therefore, this decision is not merely an advisory opinion that has been issued by the Washington Supreme Court (and which all other courts are free to follow or simply to ignore as persuasive authority only). Instead, the Bradley decision becomes THE law in the State of Washington, and it can be cited as legal precedent that is binding upon all lower courts (as well as even in the federal courts when they are applying Washington law, as in this case). CA Q. 4 What are the specific facts in this case, to which BOTH parties have stipulated, and WHAT exactly does this mean (i.e., to stipulate as to the facts)? The FACTS are as follows: The Defendant s smelting plant emitted as part of its lawful operation atmospheric gases and particulate matter containing heavy metals such as cadmium and arsenic. Depending upon the direction of the wind, sometimes these particulate emissions were known by the Defendant to be carried over the Plaintiffs nearby property where they settled out onto the land. 2
3 Since BOTH parties in this litigation have stipulated to these facts, this means that they have AGREED upon these facts. Thus, there are NO factual disputes as to any of these facts that need to be decided by the trier of fact. WHY would BOTH parties in any litigation ever AGREE as to what the facts were? Isn t this what the trier of facts (i.e., usually the jury) is supposed to determine? In cases such as this one, by agreeing as to what the specific facts are, the case can proceed without the additional time and effort and expense of having to present the facts at the trial and let the trier of fact determine what they are. This way, the parties can simply allow the court to proceed in resolving the facts based upon the applicable LAW, since there are no disputed facts involved. Of course, in this case, not even the trial court knew what the law was, so it sent these certified questions to be answered by the Washington Supreme Court. See Response to CA Q. 2, supra. CA Q. 5 What cause of action did the Plaintiffs assert against the Defendant? Trespass to land. CA Q. 6 Did the Defendant have the requisite intent to commit the tort of trespass to land under these circumstances? Yes. Applying the law of the State of Washington, the court concluded that even though the Defendant may not have had any actual intent to commit a trespass to land by releasing emissions from its smelting plant, it nevertheless DID have implied intent, since it was substantially certain knowing what it had to know [about the changing wind directions] from the facts its admits. CA Q. 7 Upon what legal precedent did the Washington Supreme Court rely in reaching the result that it did to CA Q. 6, supra? The Washington Supreme Court relied specifically upon its own precedent established in the case of Garratt v. Dailey case that recognized the doctrine of implied intent. 3
4 CA Q. 8 HOW does the Bradley court respond to the SECOND certified question as to whether the intentional deposit of microscopic particles onto the land of another constitutes a trespassory invasion to the plaintiff s exclusive possession of the property that is actionable by the tort of trespass to land IN ADDITION TO the tort of nuisance? The court actually doesn t really respond to this SECOND Question at all. Instead, it uses THIS QUESTION to establish the analytical basis for its response to the THIRD QUESTION that is truly the dispositive issue addressed by the Bradley decision. Look very CAREFULLY at the three specific steps that the court uses to develop its analytical argument in response to the THIRD QUESTION, infra. See Response to CA Q. 11, infra. STEP ONE. The court first attempts to discredit the long-standing common law precedent cases requiring a DIRECT ENTRY by a TANGIBLE OBJECT for the tort of trespass to land, referring to them as ancient, nonsensical, and not particularly influential. See page 42 of the edited case in the Casebook. [NOTE: Discrediting any precedent as being antiquated or outdated in modern law is one of the standard ways in which courts often characterize older case precedents that they simply do not wish to follow, despite the fact that such cases are still binding legal precedent which they otherwise would be compelled to follow under the doctrine of stare decisis. Whenever this language is used in a judicial opinion, it is often a signal that the court is getting ready to reject or overrule or otherwise disregard prior common law precedent. Of course, when doing this, the court will rarely acknowledge that there even is a doctrine of stare decisis.] STEP TWO. The court cites persuasive (i.e., non-binding) authority that ONE of these requirements (i.e., that the object must be a tangible one rather than an intangible one) had already been discredited in that other jurisdiction (i.e., Oregon; see Martin v. Reynolds Metals Co. case). Thus, the elimination of one of the traditional common law trespass to land requirements (i.e., that of a tangible object) from the traditional common law definition of that tort in another jurisdiction (i.e., Oregon), weakens the 4
5 validity of the traditional approach and provides further evidence to support the court s argument that this same old (i.e., the tangible object ) requirement should also be abandoned in this jurisdiction as well. STEP THREE. Finally, the court cites another non-binding case from yet another jurisdiction (i.e., the Borland case from Alabama) as an example of an entirely DIFFERENT, but supposedly even BETTER, approach to the tort of trespass to land that the court believes SHOULD be applied to the socalled modern theory of trespass. BUT, what IS this modern theory of trespass, and what about the doctrine of stare decisis, and who even said anything about any so-called modern theory of trespass in the first place? Where did THAT even come from anyway? The Bradley court, either entirely on its own, or perhaps at the suggestion of an argument that was presented to it on behalf of the Defendant, determined that Washington s traditional common law approach to the tort of trespass to land needed to be changed in favor of a new and more modern approach. To justify its decision to do this, the Bradley court quotes directly from a 1979 Alabama Supreme Court (non-binding precedent) decision in Borland v. Sanders Lead Co. case, in which the Alabama Court explains the specific requirements for this new MODERN theory regarding the tort of trespass to land. In order to recover in trespass for this type of invasion (i.e., [an indirect invasion] ), a plaintiff must show 1) an invasion affecting an interest in the exclusive possession of his property; 2) an intentional doing of the act which results in the invasion; 3) reasonable foreseeability that the act done could result in an invasion of plaintiff s possessory interest; and 4) substantial damages to the res. [Emphasis supplied.] Of greatest significance to the Bradley s court s decision are the last TWO of these requirements (emphasized supra). Where did these two requirements come from? To understand THAT question, we will need to examine the Borland case in greater detail, infra, but for now at least you 5
6 should understand that NEITHER of these two requirements had ever previously been articulated as being necessary to sustain a cause of action in the State of Washington for the common law tort of trespass to land. CA Q. 9 Did the common law of the State of Washington prior to the decision in the Bradley case require the plaintiff to prove any actual harm in order to recover damages for the tort of trespass to land"? As stated in the Response to CA Q. 8, supra, NO. The common law of Washington, just as in most other American jurisdictions at the time of this decision, did NOT require proof of any harm in order to recover damages for the tort of trespass to land. Remember, one of the primary reasons for creating the tort of trespass to land in the first place was to protect the possessor s interest in the EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION of the land. Under traditional common law principles as they had been developed from the earliest times in the English courts, even the slightest entries onto the land of another were protected as being actionable under the tort of trespass to land, because even such trivial types of entries could eventually lead to the loss of possession of the land through doctrines such as adverse possession and the creation of various other types of easements and servitudes on the land itself. Thus, in the eyes of the early common law even these types of rather trivial, non-harmful entries onto the land of another were viewed as being harmful, since they could lead to the loss of the possessor s interest un the land itself. Interestingly, even in most jurisdictions today, the law of adverse possession still remains at least potentially applicable to deny a landowner s possessory interest in some or all of the land, even though it rarely does occur, due to the rather strenuous requirements for establishing an open and notorious adverse possession. The fact that this potential harm rarely occurs anymore does not make that harm any less substantial when (and if) it actually does occur. Therefore, even today just as at the original English common law, at least technically, there is still a potential for substantial harm created even by an otherwise trivial or harmless trespassory entry onto the land of another. 6
7 CA Q. 10 Did the Bradley court follow and apply its own prior case law precedent in issuing its decision in this case? If so, explain how, and if not, explain HOW the Bradley court justifies its decision NOT to follow such precedent. Clearly, the Washington Supreme Court did NOT follow its own common law case precedent in the Bradley decision. Instead, after quoting directly from the non-binding decision of the Alabama Supreme Court in Borland v. Sanders Lead Co., [see Response to CA Q. 8, supra,] the Bradley court simply concluded that: [w]hile at common law any trespass entitled a landowner to recover nominal or punitive damages for the invasion of his property, such a rule is not appropriate under the circumstances before us. [Emphasis supplied.] See page 43 of the edited opinion in the Casebook. The Bradley court, on pages of the edited case in the Casebook, clearly asserted that the traditional common law approach to the tort of trespass to land (i.e., the approach taken by Washington as well as other various other courts such as those in the neighboring State of Oregon) was simply outdated and should no longer be followed as precedent. This led the court simply to conclude that the traditional common law rule is not appropriate under the circumstances before us. BUT, what exactly are those circumstances that were before the Bradley court and which required the court to abandon its earlier case law precedent in favor of a rule that had been adopted in a completely different (i.e., non-binding) jurisdiction? The Bradley court, by using such VAGUE language, may have left open a possible means of LIMITING the holding in this case. See CA Q. 15, infra. 7
8 CA Q. 11 HOW does the Bradley court respond to the THIRD certified QUESTION that was submitted to it? Does this response CHANGE or alter the common law of trespass to land in the State of Washington as to whether a cause of action under Washington law for the tort of trespass to land requires proof of actual damages? If so, explain HOW? The Bradley decision appears to ADD at least one (if not more) entirely NEW REQUIREMENT(S) to the prima facie requirements for the traditional common law tort of trespass to land. Specifically, near the conclusion of the opinion on page 43 of the edited version of this case in the Casebook the court states that [t]he elements that we have adopted for an action in trespass [to land] from Borland require that a plaintiff has suffered actual and substantial damages. (Emphasis supplied.) This requirement, as the court previously explained, was not necessary under the traditional common law tort of trespass to land that had formerly been applied by the State of Washington. CA Q. 12 WHAT specific POLICY REASON(S) did the Bradley court offer to justify its decision to CHANGE the traditional common law requirements for the tort of trespass to land in favor of this modern theory of trespass? In order to justify its decision to CHANGE the traditional common law requirements for the tort of trespass to land, the Bradley court appears to adopt a policy in favor of protecting manufacturers from harassing litigation due to alleged particulate trespasses by their factory emissions asserted by neighboring landowners within a hundred miles away. Specifically, on page 43 of the edited opinion in the Casebook, the court explained that: [n]o such purpose would be served by sanctioning actions in trespass by every landowner within a hundred miles of a manufacturing plant. Manufacturers would be harassed and the litigious few would cause the escalation of costs to the detriment of many. 8
9 CA Q. 13 Does the Bradley court s POLICY of avoiding harassing litigation against manufacturers legitimately justify the Bradley court s refusal to apply the POLICY of following prior case precedent under the common law doctrine of stare decisis? This is a difficult jurisprudential question to resolve. Surely, our legal system should NOT be bound to continue to adhere to and to simply blindly apply prior case precedent (in the name of stare decisis) in situations where other law and/or circumstances in our society have changed to such an extent that doing so would produce injustice to individual litigants in individual cases. Conversely, if any court could always simply decline to follow prior binding case precedent simply by offering some asserted policy reason for doing so, then NO case precedent would be safe from being rejected, no matter how good or how well founded upon and supported by the law that precedent may be. Moreover, if any court could decline to follow precedent for any such reason (or no particular reason at all) at any time, our entire American common law legal system which is based upon upholding the authority of the law as established by prior case precedents under the doctrine of stare decisis would become essentially meaningless. This would result in a form of legalized anarchy within our legal system, and no one (i.e., not any judge, or attorney, or litigant) could ever predict any outcome of any legal controversy with any degree of certainty or assurance, since that outcome would always be at risk of changing due to a new or different interpretation of the law. Case law precedent of literally hundreds of thousands of cases over hundreds of years would become replaced overnight with the personal whims and individual philosophies of each and every judge, without any formal restraints or restrictions upon what they could do in any given case or litigation. Obviously, neither of these two approaches would be particularly good for society. But, how can these two very different competing approaches ever be reconciled? Is there some middle ground approach that might be used to bring these two approaches into some type of harmony? 9
10 Fortunately, that is the beauty of the traditional common law system that most (although not all) courts still try to follow today. Rather than just blindly following precedent (even in situations where that precedent may clearly lead to unjust or inappropriate results), and rather than simply abandoning any adherence to precedent altogether in favor of complete judicial anarchy, most American courts today attempt to follow precedent as much as possible. However, when it is not otherwise appropriate to follow precedent in a particular situation, courts typically will attempt to distinguish that precedent in some way that still avoids over-ruling it altogether, by explaining or otherwise limiting the scope of some prior inconsistent application or interpretation. This leaves in tact at least some portion of that earlier precedent for continued application in future cases under the doctrine of stare decisis. Over time, after a particular precedent case has been sufficiently criticized and limited and restricted in its scope or application by subsequent courts, the old (i.e., outdated) case precedent may finally be abandoned. However, by doing so in this more gradual caseby-case approach over a period of time, this gives everyone throughout the entire legal system (i.e., the courts, the attorneys, and the litigants in future cases) an opportunity to adjust their conduct and to make future plans without fear of sudden, radical changes that might produce negative (and often even unintended) consequences in the law and in society in general. 10
11 CA Q. 14 When TWO different policies compete and they simply cannot be reconciled, which one should be controlling? Who should make these types of decisions? When, and under what circumstances should any court be allowed to set aside and not follow its own prior case precedent in a common law system, of jurisprudence that is based upon the concept of stare decisis? On page 42 of the Bradley decision, the Washington Supreme Court relied upon its own earlier decision in the case of Garratt v. Dailey to uphold the application of the common law doctrine of implied intent in this case. However, what if the Washington Supreme Court in the Bradley case had decided that it simply no longer wanted to follow the precedent established by the 1955 Washington Supreme Court in Garratt v. Dailey (and followed by subsequent Washington cases ever since that time), and, instead, they decided to just change the law altogether and to abolish the concept of implied intent by over-ruling Garratt v. Dailey and its progeny? Could the Washington Supreme Court even do this under our system of stare decisis? Yes, they certainly can. In effect, this is precisely what this court just did in the Bradley decision with respect to adding a new requirement of substantial harm as a requirement for the tort of trespass to land. But, is there any remedy that might prevent a court from over-stepping its authority and simply changing the common law on its own? The basic answer here is yes, and no. We have just seen the Washington Supreme Court change the common law in that state, despite the absence of any Washington case law precedent to support its decision, based primarily upon a purely policy-based determination by the members of that court. However, IF the people of the State of Washington happen to disagree substantially with the court s decision to ADD a new damage requirement to the tort of trespass to land, they might be able to remove some (or all) of the judges who voted in favor of making that change through a formal recall vote or petition (a fairly drastic, formal legal process that is available in most, but probably not all jurisdictions). For example, the State of California did this in response to several particularly progressive decisions by some activist justices on the California Supreme Court a few 11
12 years ago. More commonly, in most jurisdictions that elect their supreme court justices, the voters can simply remove these judges and replace them with other judges who promise to write decisions that are more in line with the principles of stare decisis, or whatever else the voters may demand. Finally, even in the absence of court elections, the voters may still be able to exert sufficient influence on their various elected state representatives to have the entire Washington State Legislature enact statutes that expressly over-rule certain named decisions by the Washington Supreme Court, sometimes even going so far as to expressly re-instate specific prior case law precedent. Although these types of resolutions often lead to more complex Constitutional separation of powers arguments, sometimes just the potential threat of legislative action can have a restraining effect upon a court s willingness to stray too far away from its adherence to common law precedent. CA Q. 15 Is there ANY way that the Bradley decision can be limited so as to NOT REQUIRE proof of substantial damages in every trespass to land case? Perhaps. At least, this is why you are in law school, so that you can learn how to make such arguments. The court in Bradley, in rejecting the traditional common law requirements for the tort of trespass to land in favor of a NEW requirement of SUBSTANTIAL (i.e., non-trivial) DAMAGE, concluded that the traditional requirements were simply not appropriate under the circumstances before us. BUT, what exactly are those circumstances that were before the Bradley court that required the court to abandon its earlier case law precedent in favor of a new modern rule that had been adopted in a completely different (i.e., non-binding) jurisdiction? AND, what (if any) circumstances WOULD BE appropriate to continue to apply the no damage requirement for the tort of trespass to land? The Bradley decision only somewhat obliquely addresses this question, however, it does 12
13 appear to LIMIT or at least to restrict its holding so as to be applicable ONLY to those types of invasions (such as the ones involved in pollution emission cases) that, at one time, were considered INDIRECT, and, hence, only a nuisance. (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED.) Arguably, THIS limitation now becomes a point of major DISTINCTION that may be helpful in trying to limit or restrict the scope and extent of the Bradley case as precedent in future trespass to land cases. Compare this distinction as you explore the Alabama Supreme Court s analysis in the Borland case in greater detail. 13
Borland v. Sanders Lead Co. 369 So. 2d 523 (Ala. 1979) Case Analysis Questions
Borland v. Sanders Lead Co. 369 So. 2d 523 (Ala. 1979) Case Analysis Questions CA Q. 1 What court decided this case? The Supreme Court of Alabama. CA Q. 2 What are the facts in this case? The Defendant
More informationAPPENDIX TWO-SAMPLE TORTS EXAM PART TWO: FIFTY MINUTES. This question has two subparts. Your answers to the two subparts may be of unequal length.
APPENDIX TWO-SAMPLE TORTS EXAM PART TWO: FIFTY MINUTES This question has two subparts. Your answers to the two subparts may be of unequal length. Your client is a large chemical company in Louisiana. During
More informationCalifornia Bar Examination
California Bar Examination Essay Question: Remedies And Selected Answers The Orahte Group is NOT affiliated with The State Bar of California PRACTICE PACKET p.1 Question Paul owns a 50-acre lot in the
More informationENTRY ORDER SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO JULY TERM, v. } Rutland Superior Court
Note: Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal. ENTRY ORDER SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2010-034 JULY TERM, 2010 Karen Paris, Individually, and as Guardian
More informationSTUDYING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
A. DISTINCTIVE ASPECTS OF U.S. JUDICIAL REVIEW 1. Once in office, all federal Article III judges are insulated from political pressures on continued employment or salary reduction, short of the drastic
More informationCommon law reasoning and institutions Civil and Criminal Procedure (England and Wales) Litigation U.S.
Litigation U.S. Just Legal Services - Scuola di Formazione Legale Via Laghetto, 3 20122 Milano Comparing England and Wales and the U.S. Just Legal Services - Scuola di Formazione Legale Via Laghetto, 3
More informationThe Nature of the Law
The Nature of the Law Chapter 1 1 The Types of Law Constitutions Statutes Common Law and Statutory Interpretation Equity Administrative regulations Administrative decisions Treaties Ordinances Executive
More informationJanuary
THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA REAFFIRMS THE ECONOMIC LOSS DOCTRINE, DECLINES TO IMPOSE TORT LIABILITY ON DEVELOPERS AND CONTRACTORS FOR NEGLIGENCE IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPERTY DAMAGE OR PERSONAL INJURY
More informationRESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF TORTS: COORDINATION AND CONTINUATION
RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF TORTS: COORDINATION AND CONTINUATION Ellen Pryor* With the near completion of the project on Physical and Emotional Harm, the Restatement (Third) of Torts now covers a wide swath
More informationGood Morning Finance 270. Finance 270 Summer The Legal & Regulatory Environment of Business
Good Morning The Legal & Regulatory Environment of Business To understand the legal & regulatory environment of business, you must appreciate the role of law as the foundation for business practice in
More informationAconsideration of the sources of law in a legal
1 The Sources of American Law Aconsideration of the sources of law in a legal order must deal with a variety of different, although related, matters. Historical roots and derivations need explanation.
More informationTHE ANSWER BOOK FOR JURY SERVICE
THE ANSWER BOOK FOR JURY SERVICE Message from the Chief Justice You have been requested to serve on a jury. Service on a jury is one of the most important responsibilities that you will exercise as a citizen
More informationInverse Condemnation and the Law of Waters
Inverse Condemnation and the Law of Waters DANIEL R. MANDELKER School of Law, Washington University, St. Louis, Mo. This paper deals with research on recent trends of legislation and court decisions pertaining
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JOSEPH KOSMALSKI and KATHY KOSMALSKI, on behalf of MARILYN KOSMALSKI, a Minor, FOR PUBLICATION March 4, 2004 9:05 a.m. Plaintiffs-Appellants, v No. 240663 Ogemaw Circuit
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC MATTIE LOMAX THE CITY OF MIAMI POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL.,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC12-2445 District Court Case No. 3D12-2250 Lower Court Case No. 09-21176 11-13319 12,-32975 MATTIE LOMAX Petitioner, V. THE CITY OF MIAMI POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET
More informationFederal and State Court System CHAPTER 13
Federal and State Court System CHAPTER 13 The Judicial System in Democracy Lesson 1 Early Systems of law Law is the set of rules and standards by which a society governs itself. In democratic societies,
More informationDOCTRINE OF ULTRA VIRES-EFFECTS AND EXCEPTIONS
CONCEPT DOCTRINE OF ULTRA VIRES-EFFECTS AND EXCEPTIONS The object clause of the Memorandum of the company contains the object for which the company is formed. An act of the company must not be beyond the
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 informationTRANSCRIPT Protecting Our Judiciary: What Judges Do and Why it Matters
TRANSCRIPT Protecting Our Judiciary: What Judges Do and Why it Matters Slide 1 Thank you for joining us for Protecting Our Judiciary: What Judges Do and Why it Matters. Protecting fair, impartial courts
More informationSupplement 3: Trespass
Torts (110-002) Autumn 2013 (Davies) Supplement 3: Trespass I. Adams v. Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co.... attached 1 237 Mich.App. 51 David P. ADAMS, et al., Plaintiffs Appellees, v. CLEVELAND CLIFFS IRON COMPA-
More informationSTATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A A Oluf Johnson, et al., Appellants, vs.
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A10-1596 A10-2135 Oluf Johnson, et al., Appellants, vs. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company, Respondent. Filed July 25, 2011 Reversed and remanded Ross,
More informationThe Federalist, No. 78
The Judicial Branch January 2015 [T]he judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible
More informationRestatement Third of Torts: Coordination and Continuation *
Restatement Third of Torts: Coordination and Continuation * With the near completion of the project on Physical-Emotional Harm, the Third Restatement of Torts now covers a wide swath of tort territory,
More informationJUDGE DENISE POSSE LINDBERG STOCK CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS
JUDGE DENISE POSSE LINDBERG STOCK CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS Stock Opening Instructions Introduction and General Instructions... 1 Summary of the Case... 2 Role of Judge, Jury and Lawyers...
More informationGOVERNMENT BY INJUNCTION AGAIN
GOVERNMENT BY INJUNCTION AGAIN CmARLS 0. GREGORy* F IFTEEN years ago Congress put itself on record in the Norris- LaGuardia Anti-injunction Act to the effect that federal judges should no longer be trusted
More informationGENERAL CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS. Members of the jury, it is now time for me to tell you the law that applies to
GENERAL CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS Members of the jury, it is now time for me to tell you the law that applies to this case. As I mentioned at the beginning of the trial, you must follow the law as I state it
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 14-0721 444444444444 USAA TEXAS LLOYDS COMPANY, PETITIONER, v. GAIL MENCHACA, RESPONDENT 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ON PETITION
More informationPARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE Script for workshop
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE Script for workshop What is Parliamentary Procedure? It is the name given to the tradition of rules and customs that has grown up in the civilized world for dealing with problems
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA COMMENT IN OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED CHANGE TO FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.180
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE / CASE NO.SC04-100 COMMENT IN OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED CHANGE TO FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.180 The
More informationHOW TO READ A LEGAL OPINION
HOW TO READ A LEGAL OPINION A GUIDE FOR NEW LAW STUDENTS Orin S. Kerr Copyright 2007 Orin S. Kerr Second Series Autumn 2007 Volume 11 Number 1 Published by The Green Bag, Inc., in cooperation with the
More informationRetrospective Effect of an Overruling Decision
Louisiana Law Review Volume 7 Number 1 November 1946 Retrospective Effect of an Overruling Decision Martha E. Kirk Repository Citation Martha E. Kirk, Retrospective Effect of an Overruling Decision, 7
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 information11 Green Bag 2d 51. Green Bag Autumn, Article. HOW TO READ A LEGAL OPINION A Guide for New Law Students. Orin S. Kerr a1
11 Green Bag 2d 51 Green Bag Autumn, 2007 Article HOW TO READ A LEGAL OPINION A Guide for New Law Students Orin S. Kerr a1 Copyright 2007 by The Green Bag, Inc.; Orin S. Kerr This essay is designed to
More informationDEFAMATION ACTIONABLE PER SE PRIVATE FIGURE MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN PRESUMED DAMAGES 1
Page 1 of 5 CONCERN PRESUMED DAMAGES 1 The (state number) issue reads: Part One: Did the defendant publish the [libelous] [slanderous] statement with actual malice? Part Two: If so, what amount of presumed
More informationNEW ISSUES IN REFUGEE RESEARCH. Complementary or subsidiary protection? Offering an appropriate status without undermining refugee protection
NEW ISSUES IN REFUGEE RESEARCH Working Paper No. 52 Complementary or subsidiary protection? Offering an appropriate status without undermining refugee protection Jens Vedsted-Hansen Professor University
More informationOral Statement by Norway as Third Party
As Delievered In the World Trade Organisation United States Continued Existence and Application of Zeroing Methodology as Third Party Third Party Session Geneva 30 January 2008 STATEMENT BY NORWAY 1. Norway
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 informationMIERA V. SAMMONS, 1926-NMSC-020, 31 N.M. 599, 248 P (S. Ct. 1926) MIERA et al. vs. SAMMONS
1 MIERA V. SAMMONS, 1926-NMSC-020, 31 N.M. 599, 248 P. 1096 (S. Ct. 1926) MIERA et al. vs. SAMMONS No. 2978 SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 1926-NMSC-020, 31 N.M. 599, 248 P. 1096 May 13, 1926 Appeal from
More informationC. Sources of Law: Common Law, Stare Decisis and the System of Precedent
C. Sources of Law: Common Law, Stare Decisis and the System of Precedent The United States legal system is rooted in English common law which began to develop in the eleventh century. The common law was
More informationAppealing Temporary Injunctive Relief In Texas. By David F. Johnson
Appealing Temporary Injunctive Relief In Texas By David F. Johnson Introduction Author has practiced civil trial and appellate law for twenty years. Author has a blog: http://www.txfiduciar ylitigator.com
More informationPRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS AND SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE
PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS AND SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE FEDERAL RULE 801(D)(1)(A): THE COMPROMISE Stephen A. Saltzburg* INTRODUCTION Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A) is a compromise. The Supreme Court
More information1. Duty, Breach, and the Meaning of Negligence
Law 580: Torts Section 1 September 17, 2015 Assignment for September 15, 16, 17: Casebook pages 97-137, 141-162 Chapter 3: the Breach Element 1. Duty, Breach, and the Meaning of Negligence Myers v. Heritage
More informationElli Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. C Minnesota Supreme Court July 30, 1998
Elli Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. C7-97-263 Minnesota Supreme Court July 30, 1998 Blatz, Chief Justice... Nineteen-year-old Elli Lake and 20-year-old Melissa Weber vacationed in Mexico in March 1995 with
More informationPolitics between Philosophy and Democracy
Leopold Hess Politics between Philosophy and Democracy In the present paper I would like to make some comments on a classic essay of Michael Walzer Philosophy and Democracy. The main purpose of Walzer
More informationChapter 2 Law and Crime
Chapter 2 Law and Crime LEARNING OBJECTIVES 1. List the four key elements defining law. 2. Identify the three key characteristics of common law. 3. Explain the importance of the adversary system. 4. Name
More informationerne Court of Nova Scotia Michael MacKay Plai and Nova Scotia Power Incorporated Defendant Notice of Action
( 20:11 NOV 0 3 Z011 Pic No. PFHrfHONOT AR~u erne Court of Nova Scotia Be ween: Michael MacKay Plai and Nova Scotia Power Incorporated Defendant Notice of Action Proceeding under the Class Proceedings
More informationCAFA - Not With Standing?
CAFA - Not With Standing? Thursday, February 09, 2012 We were just reading an interesting, relatively new, decision from our home Circuit, Reilly v. Ceridian Corp., 664 F.3d 38 (3d Cir. 2011), and our
More informationBriefing Paper (background on trespass to chattel doctrine) Trespass to chattels is a common law tort action which provides redress for
Trespass to Chattel Doctrine Applied to Cyberspace Briefing Paper (background on trespass to chattel doctrine) I. The Classic Trespass to Chattels Action A. Trespass to Chattels Defined. Trespass to chattels
More informationCase 2:09-sp RSM Document 288 Filed 01/26/15 Page 1 of 10
Case :0-sp-0000-RSM Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE Plaintiffs, STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., Defendants.
More informationLEARNING OBJECTIVES After studying Chapter 16, you should be able to: 1. Understand the nature of the judicial system. 2. Explain how courts in the United States are organized and the nature of their jurisdiction.
More information14 Guilty Pleas. Part A. Introduction GUILTY PLEAS IN JUVENILE COURT
14 Guilty Pleas Part A. Introduction 14.01 GUILTY PLEAS IN JUVENILE COURT In all jurisdictions a juvenile respondent can enter a guilty plea in a delinquency case, just as an adult defendant can in a criminal
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Christine M. Arguello
5555 Boatworks Drive LLC v. Owners Insurance Company Doc. 59 Civil Action No. 16-cv-02749-CMA-MJW 5555 BOATWORKS DRIVE LLC, v. Plaintiff, OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 532 U. S. (2001) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 99 2035 COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC., PETITIONER v. LEATHERMAN TOOL GROUP, INC. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
More informationROLE OF PRECEDENT IN STATUTORY INTERPRATATION
134 ROLE OF PRECEDENT IN STATUTORY INTERPRATATION Sparsh Mehra* The major source of law is Precedent which is following the doctrine of Stare Decisis. The meaning of this is that the judges are obliged
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS THOMAS R. OKRIE, Plaintiff/Counterdefendant- Appellant, UNPUBLISHED December 13, 2005 v No. 260828 St Clair Circuit Court ETTEMA BROTHERS, TROMBLEY SOD LC No. 03-002526-CZ
More informationHADACHECK v. SEBASTIAN, CHIEF OF POLICE OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. 239 U.S. 394; 60 L. Ed. 348; 36 S. Ct.
HADACHECK v. SEBASTIAN, CHIEF OF POLICE OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 239 U.S. 394; 60 L. Ed. 348; 36 S. Ct. 143 Submitted October 22, 1915 December 20, 1915 PRIOR HISTORY:
More informationCommentary on Idil Boran, The Problem of Exogeneity in Debates on Global Justice
Commentary on Idil Boran, The Problem of Exogeneity in Debates on Global Justice Bryan Smyth, University of Memphis 2011 APA Central Division Meeting // Session V-I: Global Justice // 2. April 2011 I am
More informationBook Review: The Effect of War on Contracts
Yale Law School Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship Series Yale Law School Faculty Scholarship 1-1-1946 Book Review: The Effect of War on Contracts Arthur L. Corbin Follow
More informationLast time we discussed a stylized version of the realist view of global society.
Political Philosophy, Spring 2003, 1 The Terrain of a Global Normative Order 1. Realism and Normative Order Last time we discussed a stylized version of the realist view of global society. According to
More informationCase 2:16-cv JTM-KGG Document 21 Filed 04/06/17 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case 2:16-cv-02648-JTM-KGG Document 21 Filed 04/06/17 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS JULIE JOHNSTON, APRIL WITTENAUER, and JOSEPH CLARK, on behalf of themselves
More informationJudicial Precedent Revision
Judicial Precedent Revision Stare Decisis Stare decisis means: stand by what has been decided. Points of law that have been decided in previous similar cases must be followed. This makes the system CONSISTENT,
More information2016 VCE Legal Studies examination report
2016 VCE Legal Studies examination report General comments The 2016 Legal Studies examination was a challenge for some students. Students should respond to the question, use the stimulus material in their
More informationPrivate Nuisance. Introduction
Private Nuisance Introduction Private nuisance is the tort of protecting the plaintiff s interest in the enjoyment of land. It was defined by Windeyer J as: an unlawful interference with a person s use
More informationCommonwealth Of Kentucky. Court of Appeals
RENDERED: AUGUST 11, 2006; 2:00 P.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth Of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2005-CA-001143-MR PAUL KIDD AND ARVETTA ADKINS KIDD APPELLANTS APPEAL FROM ELLIOTT CIRCUIT COURT v.
More informationTORTS 1 MID-TERM MODEL ANSWER (FALL 2007) MITCHELL. I. Battery
TORTS 1 MID-TERM MODEL ANSWER (FALL 2007) MITCHELL I. Battery To prevail in a prima facie case for the intentional tort of battery, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant committed a volitional act
More informationSurface Water Drainage Dispute Raises Numerous Issues
Surface Water Drainage Dispute Raises Numerous Issues 2321 N. Loop Drive, Ste 200 Ames, Iowa 50010 www.calt.iastate.edu July 17, 2009 - by Roger McEowen Overview Surface water drainage disputes can arise
More informationCongressional Investigations:
Congressional Investigations: INNER WORKINGS JERRY VooRRist ONGRESSIONAL investigations have a necessary and important place in the American scheme of government. First, such investigations should probably
More informationANSWER A TO ESSAY QUESTION 5
ANSWER A TO ESSAY QUESTION 5 Sally will bring products liability actions against Mfr. based on strict liability, negligence, intentional torts and warranty theories. Strict Products Liability A strict
More informationCase 3:12-cv CRS Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 1
Case 3:12-cv-00284-CRS Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION JOSEPH M. BILLY and SAMANTHA G. ALLEN, by and through
More informationMyTest for Smyth: The Law and Business Administrations, Thirteenth Edition Chapter 2: The Machinery of Justice
1) In addition to the two basic categories of public and private law, law is divided further into two more categories, which are a. criminal and contract law. b. domestic and international law. c. criminal
More informationLAURA MAJORANA OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. November 3, 2000 CROWN CENTRAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION
Present: All the Justices LAURA MAJORANA OPINION BY v. Record No. 992179 JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. November 3, 2000 CROWN CENTRAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAUQUIER COUNTY H.
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 informationPROBLEMS OF CREDIBLE STRATEGIC CONDITIONALITY IN DETERRENCE by Roger B. Myerson July 26, 2018
PROBLEMS OF CREDIBLE STRATEGIC CONDITIONALITY IN DETERRENCE by Roger B. Myerson July 26, 2018 We can influence others' behavior by threatening to punish them if they behave badly and by promising to reward
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 informationSales - Partial or Total Destruction of the Thing Under the Contract to Sell
Louisiana Law Review Volume 25 Number 2 Symposium Issue: The Work of the Louisiana Appellate Courts for the 1963-1964 Term February 1965 Sales - Partial or Total Destruction of the Thing Under the Contract
More informationCourt of Appeal on Smith v. Inco: Rylands v. Fletcher Revisited By Michael S. Hebert and Cheryl Gerhardt McLuckie*
Court of Appeal on Smith v. Inco: Rylands v. Fletcher Revisited By Michael S. Hebert and Cheryl Gerhardt McLuckie* In October 2011, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its much anticipated decision in
More informationCase 1:18-cv JFK Document Filed 06/01/18 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Case 1:18-cv-00182-JFK Document 127-1 Filed 06/01/18 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ) CITY
More informationMotion for Decertification of Class
Superior Court of the State of California IN RE TOBACCO CASES II Brown, et al. v. The American Tobacco Co., Inc., et al. Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding (JCCP) No. 4042 San Diego Superior Case
More informationPearson Education Limited Edinburgh Gate Harlow Essex CM20 2JE England and Associated Companies throughout the world
Pearson Education Limited Edinburgh Gate Harlow Essex CM20 2JE England and Associated Companies throughout the world Visit us on the World Wide Web at: www.pearsoned.co.uk Pearson Education Limited 2014
More information1. The primary objective of law is to maintain harmony, stability, and justice within a society.
Business Law with UCC Applications 14th Edition Sukys Test Bank Full Download: http://testbanklive.com/download/business-law-with-ucc-applications-14th-edition-sukys-test-bank/ Chapter 02 Sources of the
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. Nos. 113, , , ,278. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, GLENN D. GROSS, Appellant.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS Nos. 113,275 113,276 113,277 113,278 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. GLENN D. GROSS, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. Generally, appellate courts require a
More informationAccess to Justice: Regulation of power stations
This factsheet is current as at August 2018 Access to Justice: Regulation of power stations 1. Overview What is this factsheet about? This factsheet provides an introduction to the laws around power stations,
More informationVargas v. Monte DRAFTERS POINT SHEET
Vargas v. Monte DRAFTERS POINT SHEET This performance test requires applicants to draft a persuasive brief in the context of a pending bench trial. The setting is a timber trespass action brought by landowner
More informationIN THE MĀORI APPELLATE COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT A PHILIP DEAN TAUEKI Appellant. HOROWHENUA SAILING CLUB First Respondent
2014 Maori Appellate Court MB 60 IN THE MĀORI APPELLATE COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT A20130008562 UNDER Section 58, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND AND AND AND Horowhenua
More informationInjunction or damages. 1 Balancing exercise - a finding in proceedings that an actionable interference with
Injunction or damages 1 Balancing exercise - a finding in proceedings that an actionable interference with an easement has occurred then leads on to the need to answer the question as to what relief is
More informationTIF for Smyth: The Law and Business Administrations, Fourteenth Edition Chapter 2: The Machinery of Justice
1) In addition to the two basic categories of public and private law, law is divided further into two more categories, which are a. criminal and contract law. b. domestic and international law. c. criminal
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE A112207
Filed 11/6/07 P. v. Hylton CA1/5 Opinion following remand by U.S. Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing
More informationBARTKO ZANKEL BUNZEL ALERT!
BARTKO ZANKEL BUNZEL ALERT! PRESIDENT SIGNS DEFEND TRADE SECRETS ACT OF 2016 : FEDERAL JURISDICTION FOR TRADE SECRET ACTIONS Introduction. For many years, litigants have had original federal court jurisdiction
More informationDECISION Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment, and Defendants Motion to Strike
Rock of Ages Corp. v. Bernier, No. 68-2-14 Wncv (Teachout, J., April 22, 2015) [The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been reformatted from the original. The accuracy of the
More informationTitle 5: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND SERVICES
Title 5: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND SERVICES Chapter 10: UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES Table of Contents Part 1. STATE DEPARTMENTS... Section 205-A. SHORT TITLE... 3 Section 206. DEFINITIONS... 3 Section 207.
More informationIN BRIEF COMMON LAW AND CIVIL LAW
Learning Objectives To introduce key differences between common and civil legal traditions. To develop students understanding of strengths and weaknesses of each system. To develop students knowledge of
More informationCommonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: JANUARY 23, 2015; 10:00 A.M. TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2013-CA-001706-MR JANICE WARD APPELLANT APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE JAMES M. SHAKE,
More informationCONTRACTS. A contract is a legally enforceable agreement between two or more parties whereby they make the future more predictable.
CONTRACTS LESE Spring 2002 O'Hara 1 A contract is a legally enforceable agreement between two or more parties whereby they make the future more predictable. Contracts are in addition to the preexisting,
More informationIN COURT OF APPEALS. DECISION DATED AND FILED March 6, Appeal No. 2016AP2258-CR DISTRICT III STATE OF WISCONSIN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED March 6, 2018 Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the
More informationBig Idea 2 Objectives Explain the extent to which states are limited by the due process clause from infringing upon individual rights.
Big Idea 2: The Courts, Civil Liberties, & Civil Rights Through the U.S. Constitution, but primarily through the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment, citizens and groups have attempted to restrict national
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ANTHONY NALBANDIAN, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION June 21, 2005 9:05 a.m. v No. 252164 Wayne Circuit
More informationINTENTIONAL MISCONDUCT:
INTENTIONAL MISCONDUCT: Prima Facie case: Torts to (person/property) in which: - D s act with intent (desire or purpose to cause/knowledge of substantial certainty that results will occur) garratt v. dailey
More informationJohn Rawls THEORY OF JUSTICE
John Rawls THEORY OF JUSTICE THE ROLE OF JUSTICE Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised
More informationABA Formal Op. 334 Page 1 ABA Comm. on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Formal Op American Bar Association
ABA Formal Op. 334 Page 1 American Bar Association LEGAL SERVICES OFFICES: PUBLICITY; RESTRICTIONS ON LAWYERS' ACTIVITIES AS THEY AFFECT INDEPENDENCE OF PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT; CLIENT CONFIDENCES AND SECRETS.
More informationAn Overview of Civil Litigation in the U.S. presented by Martijn Steger May 24, 2014
presented by Martijn Steger May 24, 2014 General Explanation of Civil Litigation in the U.S. U.S. litigation is governed by + + Rules of Civil Procedure; and + + Rules of Evidence. Rules of Civil Procedure:
More information