DORI SYOKOS, KONSTANTINA I. SYOKOS. Sip. DORINN SYOKOS, Third-Par Plaintiff. BRAKO BAJCER and DRAEN BAJCER
|
|
- Elmer Palmer
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Sip SHORT FORM ORDER Present: HON. LAWRENCE J. BRENNAN Acting Justice Supreme Court NASSAU COUNTY JAMES SCIADONE TRIAL PART: 52 Index No. 445/02 DORI AN SYOKOS BRAO BAJCER and DRAEN BAJCER Defendants DORINN SYOKOS, Third-Par PASQUALE SCIALDONE, Il Third-Par Defendant ---x x PASQUALE SCIADONE Il Index No /04 DORI SYOKOS, KONSTANTINA I. SYOKOS BRAKO BAJCER and DRAEN BAJCER Defendants x
2 x DORINN SYOKOS, as Administratrx of the Estate of KONSTANTINA I. SYOKOS and DORI AN SYOKOS, individually, Index No /02 DRAEN BAJCER, BRANKO BAJCER and PASQUALE SCIALDONE Defendants x PASQUALE SCIALDONE Il Index No /04 DORI ANN SYOKOS, as Administratrx of the Estate of KONSTANTINA J. SYOKOS Defendant x The following papers have been read on this motion: Motion to renew by Defendant Svokos in Actions Nos. 1, 2 and 4 dated 12/14/05 Affirmation in Opposition of James Scialdone in 1 dated 1/4/06 Affirmation in Opposition of Third-Part Defendant/laintiff/Defendant Pasquale Scialdone III in Actions Nos. 1, 2, and 4 dated 1/9/06 Reply Affirmation of Defendants/Third Party s Svokos in Actions Nos. 1 2 and 4 - dated 1/18/06.
3 The motion by the defendants/third-party plaintiffs Svokos in Actions Nos. I, and 4 to renew and reargue the Court' s October 7, 2005 Decision and Order pursuant to CPLR 2214(b), is granted. Upon reconsideration, the Court adheres to its prior determination to the extent that the motion for summary judgment by the Third Party Defendant, Pasquale Scialdone III, and the cross-motion by the, Pasquale Scialdone III, in Action No., were granted. The Court' s October 7, 2005 Decision and Order, in which reference to granting a cross-motion by the, James Scialdone, in Action No., is vacated inasmuch as no such cross-motion was made but only Affirmation in Support was submitted on behalf of, James Scialdone, in, in support of the cross-motion of, Pasquale Scialdone III, in Actions No. 2 and No. The Court finds that the Defendants/Third-Party s Svokos have demonstrated a "good faith" law office omission in failing to submit an affidavit and draft opinion of Mr. McMurte with its initial opposition papers. Clearly, Mr. McMurtrie s final affidavit and report post-dated the Court' s October 7, 2005 Decision and Order concerning the initial motion, albeit apparently at the direction of movant' s counsel. It would clearly have been better practice of counsel for the Defendants/Third Party s Svokos to have moved or requested that the Court delay its determination in anticipation of Mr. McMurtrie s affidavit and report prior to this Court' s October 7, 2005 decision. Nevertheless, counsel had sent its accident video animation to all counsel, as well as its CPLR 3101d(iii) expert witness disclosure prior to submission of its opposition papers. Thus, other counsel were on notice that the Defendants/Third Party s Svokos intended to defend the liability aspects of the case on the merits. Counsel for the, James Scialdone, in, understandably argues that the admission by counsel for the Defendants/Third Party s Svokos, in Actions 1, 2, and 4, the within movants, that his decision not to submit an expert' s affidavit of Howard McMurte, as part of his opposition to the underlying motion and cross-motion to dismiss, was merely strategic. (See: Reply Affirmation of Defendant/Third Part Svokos' counsel at page 3, paragraph 6). He further relies on Abrahamsen v. Brockway Glass Co., Inc., 156 AD 2d 615 (A.D. 2d Dept. 1989), in which a similar tactical determination made by plaintiffs counsel in a products liability case resulted in a denial of a motion to
4 reargue and renew. See: Kratterv. Weintraub, 97 AD2d491 (A. 2dDept.1983). The Court recognizes the evidentiary hardship faced by the Defendants/Third Party s Svokos in view ofthe death ofdoriann Svokos, who apparently made no res gestae or other statements at the accident scene. It is only through an expert' reconstruction, together with deposition and trial testimony, that her counsel can arguably defend her interests. On balance, the Court believes that it would not be in the interests of justice in the totality of these circumstances, to disallow consideration and judicial review of Mr. McMurtrie affidavit and report. However, the Court must exercise its gatekeeper" discretion in assessing the reliability of this putative evidence. Included in the affidvit and report inter alia are: self-serving synopses of depositions of parties and witnesses; an uncertified copy of the relevant Police Report; photographs of the accident scene and of what he described as "exemplar vehicles ; putative data and mathematical calculations; and insufficiently referenced articles and texts. The Court has never (emphasis added) been provided with the complete depositions referred to by any counsel in either the initial motion and cross-motion or in the within motion to renew and reargue. The Court simply cannot rely on Mr. McMurte s deposition synopses, or those of any counsel, as evidence proffered in admissible form. The scientific conclusions opined by Mr. McMurtrie warrant review, but they only address cross claims asserted among the Defendants, Branko Bajcer and Drazen Bajcer, and the Defendants/Third Part s, Doriann Svokos and Konstantina 1. Svokos. His opinion is solely related to the factors involving initial impacts between their respective vehicles. In summary, he posits that the Bajcer vehicle initially strck the Svokos' vehicle one or more times and caused her car to then go out of control across the grassy median, eventually striking the Scialdone vehicle. None of Mr. McMurte s contentions, nor the arguments of Defendants/ Third Part s Svokos ' counsel, suggest or opine that the Third-Part Defendant/laintiffPasquale Scialdone s vehicle in any way caused or contributed to the second accident between the Scialdone and Svokos vehicles. In reviewing the Affidavit, the Court notes that Mr. McMurtrie s report contains interpretations of a number ofn ewton s Laws of Physics and some complex mathematical calculations from another company, the Maine Computer Group I, in South Gardiner, Maine. There are no facts averred which would demonstrate that the
5 calculations are his and, thus, are not inadmissible hearsay. Nor does Mr. McMurte s Affidavit demonstrate any factual basis which would impel the Court to rely on the putative accuracy of the data, much less the conclusions he draws therefrom. See: Wagman v. Bradshaw, 292 A. 2d 84 (A. 2nd Dept. 2002); Niagra Vest, Inc. v. Alloy Briquetting Corp. 244 A. 2d 892 (A.DAthDept. 1997). Similarly, the data referenced from Expert Auto Stats, Forensic Expert Softare in LaMesa, California, are not per se self-authenticating, reliable or probative. Indeed, the actual corporate name is unclear. Nothing in his affidavit attempts to explain or justify why the Court should give them cognizance. In addition, two writings, one a purported policy published by an organization denominated the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and the other, Volume 2 of the Traffic Accident Investigation Manual by Northwestern University Traffic Institute, are referenced in his report. These are also not per se self-authenticating nor reliable, and, in any event, no copies or even relevant quoted portions thereof are offered in the report, nor annexed to referenced, or explained in his affidavit. Mr. McMurte s opinion, at paragraph 8 of his affidavit, states that his educational background forms part of the basis for rendering an opinion herein. The Court notes that his highest level of academic achievement is an Associate Degree in Criminology from Indiana University in Pennsylvania in He does reference attendance at many professional seminars, institutes and conferences, which might conceivably qualify him to understand, explain, or rely on the aforementioned mathematical calculations and Newtonian physics principles which he posits. However, his affidavit makes no such representations. His actual involvement in having investigated more than accidents, and in having testified in 14 jurisdictions in Pennsylvania, is referred to without further amplification. In particular, no offer of proof is made that he prepared or attested to the necessary professional methodology which was employed in preparing either the mathematical or physics calculations, if any, used in even one of those trials. Nor is there any comment about whether any process relied upon is accepted in the relevant scientific or mathematical communities. Elementary scientific concepts, including peer review, potential rates of error and testability are not even referred to in either his report or affidavit. Mr. McMurtrie s qualifications simply do not qualify him to
6 satisfy necessary professional acceptance standards in order to authenticate either the data or his opinions. See: Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U. S. 579 (1993); Frye v. United States, 293 F (D. C. Circ (1923); Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U. S. 137 (1999). In view of the purported evidence submitted, virtally all of which is merely inadmissible hearsay and wholly unsupported conclusory opinions as discussed hereinabove, the Court determines that the Defendants/Third Part s Svokos in Actions Nos. 1 2 and 4, have not set forth sufficient evidence in admissible form to convince the Court that there are significant, material fact questions concerning the operation and control ofthe Defendants Svokos ' vehicle and the Defendants Bajcer vehicle which should be resolved by a jury. The original underlying. motion to grant summary judgment was brought by Third Part Defendant, Pasquale Scialdone III, in There has been no offer of proof in admissible form whatsoever in this motion to renew and reargue which in any way supports any inference that either Pasquale Scialdone III (the original movant and cross movant), or his passenger, James Scialdone, in, caused or contrbuted to the accident. The entire focus of Mr. McMurtrie s affidavit and report addresses only his unsupported opinions about possible factors involving the respective operation and control of the Svokos and Bajcer vehicles, wholly unrelated to the operation or control of the initial movant Pasquale Scialdone Ill's vehicle. In 1 (Index No. 445/02) the third party action, Defendant/Third Party, Doriann Svokos, against Third-part Defendant, Pasquale Scialdone III, is dismissed. In,, Pasquale Scialdone III, against Defendant, Doriann Svokos as Administrator of the Estate of Konstantina Svokos, summary judgment against the Defendant is granted. In,, Pasquale Scialdone III, against Defendants, Doriann Svokos, Konstantina 1. Svokos, Branko Bajcer and Drazen Bajcer, (bearing the same Index No /04, as 4), appears to have been superceded by Action
7 ,. ""' ~~~ No., in which the caption reflects that Pasquale Scialdone Ill' s suit is solely against the Defendant Dori Ann Svokos as Administratrix of the Estate of Konstantina J. Svokos, summary judgment is granted. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. Dated: April 5, LA N E J. BRENNAN A tmg Supreme Court Judge 1. O \?R OI'I'\
THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR JUSTICE AND
THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR JUSTICE AND THE RULE OF LAW AND THE NATIONAL JUDICIAL COLLEGE EXPERT WITNESSES DIVIDER 6 Professor Michael Johnson OBJECTIVES: After this session, you will be able to: 1. Distinguish
More informationEvidentiary Standards in the State of Illinois: The Interpretation and Implementation of Supreme Court Opinions
Evidentiary Standards in the State of Illinois: The Interpretation and Implementation of Supreme Court Opinions Barbara Figari Illinois Conference for Students of Political Science 1 Criminal cases are
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Raymond P. Moore
358 Liberation LLC v. Country Mutual Insurance Company Doc. 62 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Raymond P. Moore Case No. 15-cv-01758-RM-STV 358 LIBERATION LLC, v.
More informationKumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael. Case Background
Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael Albert J. Grudzinskas, Jr., JD The U.S. Supreme Court considered an appeal by the defendant, Kumho Tire, in a products liability action. The appeal resulted from a ruling
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Pettit v. Hill Doc. 60 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA CHARLES A. PETTIT, SR., as the PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE of the ESTATE OF CHARLES A. PETTIT, JR., Plaintiff,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
-BLM Leeds, LP v. United States of America Doc. 1 LEEDS LP, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case No. 0CV0 BTM (BLM) 1 1 1 1 0 1 v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, Defendant.
More informationPreparing for Daubert Through the Life of a Case
Are You Up to the Challenge? By Ami Dwyer Meticulous attention throughout the lifecycle of a case can prevent a Daubert challenge from derailing critical evidence at trial time. Preparing for Daubert Through
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION. CITY OF FINDLAY, et al.l, Defendant.
Hernandez v. City of Findlay et al Doc. 60 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION ROBERTO HERNANDEZ, -vs- CITY OF FINDLAY, et al.l, KATZ, J. Plaintiff, Case
More informationRULES OF EVIDENCE LEGAL STANDARDS
RULES OF EVIDENCE LEGAL STANDARDS Digital evidence or electronic evidence is any probative information stored or transmitted in digital form that a party to a court case may use at trial. The use of digital
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) Criminal No. 99-215 ) JOSEPH P. MINERD ) GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
More informationCOUNTY. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ) ) MOTION TO EXCLUDE vs. ) TESTIMONY REGARDING ) FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS, ) Defendant. ) I.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ) ) MOTION TO EXCLUDE vs. ) TESTIMONY REGARDING ) FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS, ) Defendant. ) NOW
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WOOD COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA. // Case No. 02-F-131 (Thomas C Evans, III, Judge)
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WOOD COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, Plaintiff, Vs. ROBIN LADD, Defendant. // Case No. 02-F-131 (Thomas C Evans, III, Judge) ORDER DENYING MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCULDE
More informationscc Doc 860 Filed 03/06/12 Entered 03/06/12 16:37:03 Main Document Pg 1 of 14
10-15973-scc Doc 860 Filed 03/06/12 Entered 03/06/12 163703 Main Document Pg 1 of 14 Peter A. Ivanick Allison H. Weiss 1301 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10019 Tel (212) 259-8000 Fax (212)
More informationWhitmore, supra at 601. Mere conclusions or unsubstantiated allegations are insufficient to
SHORT FORM ORDER SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK Present: HON. DANIEL PALMIERI Acting Justice Supreme Court --~----~---~~_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_~~_~_~ TRIAL PART: 35 CLARENCE 0. THORNTON and CAROL
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO. v. Civ. No SCY/KK MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Bar J Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Fisher Sand & Gravel Co. Doc. 194 BAR J SAND & GRAVEL, INC., a New Mexico corporation, Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO v. Civ.
More informationCourt granted Defendants motion in limine to preclude the testimony of Plaintiffs damages
Case 1:04-cv-09866-LTS-HBP Document 679 Filed 07/08/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------x IN RE PFIZER INC.
More informationDaubert and Rule 702: Effectively Presenting and Challenging Experts in Federal Court
Daubert and Rule 702: Effectively Presenting and Challenging Experts in Federal Court January 26, 2010 Moderator: Nicole Skarstad American Lawyer Media nskarstad@alm.com John L. Tate, Panelist A member
More informationhttps://advance.lexis.com/pages/contentviewprintablepage.aspx
Page 1 of 5 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188963 Rutstein v. Cindy's Trucking of Ill. Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188963 (Copy citation) United States District Court for the District of Wyoming August 8, 2012,
More informationUnited States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION
Case 4:15-cv-00127-ALM Document 93 Filed 08/02/16 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1828 United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION STING SOCCER OPERATIONS GROUP LP; ET. AL. v. CASE NO.
More informationTHE USE OF EXPERT TESTIMONY AT TRIAL
THE USE OF EXPERT TESTIMONY AT TRIAL Hon. Saliann Scarpulla Justice, Supreme Court, New York County A. The Purpose of Expert Testimony The purpose of expert disclosure is to aid the fact finder in those
More informationReporting Animal Cruelty for Veterinarians
Reporting Animal Cruelty for Veterinarians By Claudine Wilkins and Jessica Rock, Founders of Animal Law Source BACKGROUND Due to increased prosecution of animal cruelty defendants, Veterinarians are being
More informationCase 2:11-cv RBS -DEM Document 94 Filed 10/31/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 2118
Case 2:11-cv-00546-RBS -DEM Document 94 Filed 10/31/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 2118 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division CORBIN BERNSEN Plaintiff, v. ACTION NO.
More informationDefendants. -against- Defendants. MOTION SEQUENCE NOS. 5 and 7 ACTION NO. Third-Party Plaintiff. Third- Party Defendants. ACTION NO.
----------------------------------------------------------------.. c SHORT FORM ORDER SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK Present: HON. STEVEN M. JAEGER, Acting Supreme Court Justice CAMILO CABALLERO ERICH
More informationWritten materials by Jonathan D. Sasser
Power Point Presentation By Rachel Scott Decker Ward Black Law 208 West Wendover Avenue Greensboro, North Carolina 27401 (336) 273-3812 www.wardblacklaw.com Written materials by Jonathan D. Sasser Since
More informationCase 1:15-cv MEH Document 58 Filed 05/10/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case 1:15-cv-01826-MEH Document 58 Filed 05/10/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 11 Civil Action No. 15-cv-01826-MEH DEREK M. RICHTER, v. Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. MARTIN DAVID SALAZAR-MERCADO, Appellant. No. CR-13-0244-PR Filed May 29, 2014 Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County The
More informationChanges to Rule 702(a): Has North Carolina Codified Daubert and Does It Matter? During the past legislative session, the General Assembly changed Rule
Changes to Rule 702(a): Has North Carolina Codified Daubert and Does It Matter? During the past legislative session, the General Assembly changed Rule 702(a) that deals with the admissibility of expert
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION. Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO.
Stallion Heavy Haulers, LP v. Lincoln General Insurance Company Doc. 36 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION STALLION HEAVY HAULERS, LP, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL
More informationBEGELMAN & ORLOW, P.C. Attorneys at Law
ROSS BEGELMAN* MARC M. ORLOW JORDAN R. IRWIN REGINA D. POSERINA MEMBER NEW JERSEY & PENNSYLVANIA BARS *MEMBER NEW JERSEY, PENNSYLVANIA & NEW YORK BARS BEGELMAN & ORLOW, P.C. Attorneys at Law Cherry Hill
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 01-0301 444444444444 COASTAL TRANSPORT COMPANY, INC., PETITIONER, v. CROWN CENTRAL PETROLEUM CORP., RESPONDENT 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION
Case 1:13-cv-00146-CSO Document 75 Filed 11/12/14 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION SHADYA JARECKE, CV 13-146-BLG-CSO vs. Plaintiff, ORDER ON
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Patel v. Patel et al Doc. 113 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA CHAMPAKBHAI PATEL, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. CIV-17-881-D MAHENDRA KUMAR PATEL, et al., Defendants. O R D E
More informationCase 1:15-cv JCH-LF Document 60 Filed 11/04/16 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
Case 1:15-cv-00597-JCH-LF Document 60 Filed 11/04/16 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO PATRICIA CABRERA, Plaintiff, v. No. 15 CV 597 JCH/LF WAL-MART STORES
More informationEXPERT DISCLOSURE AND THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT TESTIMONY IN NEW YORK AND FEDERAL COURTS KYLE N. KORDICH, ESQ.
EXPERT DISCLOSURE AND THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT TESTIMONY IN NEW YORK AND FEDERAL COURTS KYLE N. KORDICH, ESQ. I. DISCLOSURE OF EXPERTS UNDER CPLR 3101(d): CPLR 3101(d) Trial preparation. 1. Experts.
More informationCASE NO. 1D Bill McCabe, Longwood, and Tonya A. Oliver, Trinity, for Appellant.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA WILLIAM BOOKER, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D14-4812
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION CASE NO CR-FERGUSON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION CASE NO. 99-8131-CR-FERGUSON UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, V. HILERDIEU ALTEME, et al., Defendants. REPORT AND
More informationExpert Testimony: A Judge s Perspective HON. JACK D. DAVIS, II JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, SANGAMON COUNTY, ILLINOIS
Expert Testimony: A Judge s Perspective HON. JACK D. DAVIS, II JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, SANGAMON COUNTY, ILLINOIS Demographics Number of those in attendance with experience as: A sworn law enforcement
More informationCaraballo v City of New York 2011 NY Slip Op 30605(U) March 4, 2011 Supreme Court, Richmond County Docket Number: /08 Judge: Thomas P.
Caraballo v City of New York 2011 NY Slip Op 30605(U) March 4, 2011 Supreme Court, Richmond County Docket Number: 103477/08 Judge: Thomas P. Aliotta Republished from New York State Unified Court System's
More informationpresent photographic identification before casting ballots. Presently before the Court is
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division BARBARA H. LEE, et ai. Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 3:15CV357-HEH VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, etal. Defendants.
More informationSHORT FORM ORDER SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK Present: HON. F. DANA WINSLOW, Justice TRIAL/lAS, PART 6 ROBERT J. KURRE, Defendants.
...... SHORT FORM ORDER SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK Present: HON. F. DANA WINSLOW, Justice TRIAL/lAS, PART 6 ROBERT J. KURRE, STEVE YIUFAI WONG and TAO GUAN, j:c/ Plaintiff, MOTION DATE: 11/4/09
More informationMOTION TO EXCLUDE UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE (Plant or root growth evidence) Defendant,, by and through her undersigned attorney, moves this Honorable
MOTION TO EXCLUDE UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE (Plant or root growth evidence) Defendant,, by and through her undersigned attorney, moves this Honorable Court to exclude from this cause any testimony or evidence
More informationMEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
Case 4:14-cv-03649 Document 32 Filed in TXSD on 01/14/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION BERNICE BARCLAY, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION H-14-3649 STATE
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. v. Case No. 16-CV-1396 DECISION AND ORDER
Raab v. Wendel et al Doc. 102 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN RUDOLPH RAAB, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 16-CV-1396 MICHAEL C. WENDEL, et al., Defendants. DECISION AND ORDER
More information2:12-cr SFC-MKM Doc # 227 Filed 12/06/13 Pg 1 of 12 Pg ID 1213 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
2:12-cr-20218-SFC-MKM Doc # 227 Filed 12/06/13 Pg 1 of 12 Pg ID 1213 United States of America, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION v. Criminal Case No.
More informationDaubert Issues For Footwear Examiners
Daubert Issues For Footwear Examiners International Association for Identification San Diego 2007 Cindy Homer, MS D-ABC, CFWE, CCSA Forensic Scientist Maine State Police Crime Laboratory Objectives Give
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER. Defendant s Biomechanical Expert Witness
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY YOLANDA S. DiVIRGILIO, v. Plaintiff, MARLA R. ESKIN, ESQUIRE, as Administratrix of the Estate of Robert P. Chickadel, deceased,
More informationMcCabe v Avalon Bay Communities Inc 2018 NY Slip Op 33108(U) November 30, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2016 Judge:
McCabe v Avalon Bay Communities Inc 2018 NY Slip Op 33108(U) November 30, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 156813/2016 Judge: Gerald Lebovits Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e.,
More informationMisinterpretation and Misapplication of Kumho Tire to Business Valuation
Misinterpretation and Misapplication of Kumho Tire to Business Valuation Chartwell Litigation Trust v. Addus Healthcare, Inc. (In re Med Diversified) Authored By: ROBERT JAMES CIMASI, MHA, ASA, CBA, AVA,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA ORDER. Presently before the court is the Noorda defendants 1 motion in limine no. 1 to exclude Aaron
Allstate Insurance Company et al vs. Nassiri, et al., Doc. 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., v. Plaintiffs, OBTEEN N. NASSIRI, D.C., et al., Defendants. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT
More informationGonzalez v Schlau 2011 NY Slip Op 31048(U) April 12, 2011 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 8960/2009 Judge: Robert J. McDonald Republished
Gonzalez v Schlau 2011 NY Slip Op 31048(U) April 12, 2011 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 8960/2009 Judge: Robert J. McDonald Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 09-8051 AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., et al., v. Petitioners, RICHARD ALLEN, et al., Respondents. Petition for Leave to Appeal from
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 21, 2016 v No. 326645 Ingham Circuit Court KRISTOFFERSON TYRONE THOMAS, LC No. 14-000507-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationLighting Up the Post- Daubert Landscape?
General Electric Co. v. Joiner: Lighting Up the Post- Daubert Landscape? Albert J. Grudzinskas, Jr., JD, and Kenneth L. Appelbaum, MD The U.S. Supreme Court considered an appeal by the defendant, General
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
HALE v. GANNON et al Doc. 104 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION DELISA HALE, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT T. GANNON, et al., Defendants. Cause No. 1:11-cv-277-WTL-DKL
More informationCase4:07-cv PJH Document833-1 Filed09/09/10 Page1 of 5
Case:0-cv-0-PJH Document- Filed0/0/0 Page of 0 Robert A. Mittelstaedt (SBN 00) Jason McDonell (SBN 0) Elaine Wallace (SBN ) California Street, th Floor San Francisco, CA 0 Telephone: () - Facsimile: ()
More informationOverview of Admissibility of Expert Testimony
Overview of Admissibility of Expert Testimony Md. Rule 5-702: Expert testimony may be admitted, in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if the court determines that the testimony will assist the trier
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
1 1 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PRESIDIO COMPONENTS, INC., Plaintiff, vs. AMERICAN TECHNICAL CERAMICS CORP., Defendant. CASE NO. 1-CV-1-H (BGS) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT
More informationQualifications, Presentation and Challenges to Expert Testimony - Daubert (i.e. is a DFPS caseworker an expert)
Qualifications, Presentation and Challenges to Expert Testimony - Daubert (i.e. is a DFPS caseworker an expert) 1. Introduction Theodore B. Jereb Attorney at Law P.L.L.C. 16506 FM 529, Suite 115 Houston,
More information* * * * * * * JONES, J., CONCURS IN PART AND DISSENTS IN PART FOR THE REASONS ASSIGNED BY JUDGE LOVE LOVE, J., CONCURS IN PART AND DISSENTS IN PART.
DR. SUSAN HOOPER, D.C. VERSUS TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY AND ROBERT AND LEAH PAYNE * * * * * * * * * * * NO. 2010-CA-1685 C/W NO. 2011-CA-0220 COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA APPEAL
More informationCase 3:12-cv GAG-CVR Document 266 Filed 12/19/13 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
Case :-cv-0-gag-cvr Document Filed // Page of LUZ MIRIAM TORRES, et al., IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 0 Plaintiffs, v. MENNONITE GENERAL HOSPITAL INC., et al., Defendants.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO ORDER AND REASONS
McCrary v. John W. Stone Oil Distributor, L.L.C. Doc. 58 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA JAMES MCCRARY CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 14-880 JOHN W. STONE OIL DISTRIBUTOR, L.L.C. SECTION
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI ST. JOSEPH DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI ST. JOSEPH DIVISION TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 16-06084-CV-SJ-ODS JET MIDWEST TECHNIK,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : : Criminal No. 99-0389-01,02 (RWR) v. : : RAFAEL MEJIA, : HOMES VALENCIA-RIOS, : Defendants. : GOVERNMENT S MOTION TO
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE Delaware Avenue P.O. Box 876 P.O. Box 2165 Georgetown, DE Wilmington, DE 19899
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE E. SCOTT BRADLEY P.O. Box 746 JUDGE COURTHOUSE GEORGETOWN, DE 19947 July 21, 2004 George T. Lees, III, Esquire Bruce A. Rogers, Esquire Bifferato, Bifferato & Gentilotti
More informationSupreme Court of the State of New York County of Nassau IAS Trial Part 22 Part Rules Updated: January 25, 2018
Supreme Court of the State of New York County of Nassau IAS Trial Part 22 Part Rules Updated: January 25, 2018 Justice: Law Secretary: Secretary: Part Clerk: Hon. Sharon M.J. Gianelli, J.S.C. Karen L.
More informationBATTLE OF THE EXPERTS: HOW TO EFFECTIVELY MANAGE AND LEVERAGE EXPERTS FOR OPTIMAL RESULTS
The Bar Association of San Francisco The Construction Section of the Barristers Club June 6, 2018 I. Speakers (full bios attached) Clark Thiel Partner Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Sarah Peterman
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS RAYMOND O NEAL, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 28, 2010 v No. 277317 Wayne Circuit Court ST. JOHN HOSPITAL & MEDICAL CENTER LC No. 05-515351-NH and RALPH DILISIO,
More informationTrial/AS Part. against. Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause... X Cross- Motio os... Answ ering Affidavits... X Replying Affidavits...
.............. --------- - --- --- --- - - ---- --- - -- ----- --- --- -- - - -- -- ----- - SHORT FORM ORDER SUPREME COURT, STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU JOSEPH CHINEA, Plaintiff Trial/AS Part Index
More informationJustice. The following paper read on this motion: Notice of Motion... 1 Affidavit in Opposition... 2 Reply Affirmation l&2000 of Dr.
SHORT FORM ORDER Present: SUPREME COURT HON. JOSEPH COVELLO - STATE OF NEW YORK Justice DEBRA PENZONE and JOSEPH PENZONE, -against- Plaintiff, PATRICIA E. ALDENTON and INDEPENDENT COACH CORP.,, Defendants.
More informationSuazo v City of New York 2018 NY Slip Op 32869(U) September 28, 2018 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: /2015 Judge: Ernest F.
Suazo v City of New York 2018 NY Slip Op 32869(U) September 28, 2018 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 702028/2015 Judge: Ernest F. Hart Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Todd v. Fidelity National Financial, Inc. et al Doc. 224 Civil Action No. 12-cv-666-REB-CBS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Robert E. Blackburn UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
More informationMELDA TURKER, ET AL. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.
[Cite as Turker v. Ford Motor Co., 2007-Ohio-985.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 87890 MELDA TURKER, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS vs.
More informationNASSAU COUNTY JANET M. CARTER-LITTLE and JANET M. CARTER-LITTLE, Individually, c. Plaintiffs, -against- MOTION DATE:
SHORT FORM ORDER SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK Present: HON. DANIEL PALMIERI Acting Justice Supreme Court --------------------~~---~~~~~~~~~_~~---~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ TRIAL PART: 35 TYRONE
More informationChoi v Korowitz 2013 NY Slip Op 33944(U) August 15, 2013 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: /11 Judge: Bernice D. Siegal Cases posted
Choi v Korowitz 2013 NY Slip Op 33944(U) August 15, 2013 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 700688/11 Judge: Bernice D. Siegal Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U),
More informationSam v Mirtil 2018 NY Slip Op 33281(U) October 15, 2018 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: /2011 Judge: George J. Silver Cases posted
Sam v Mirtil 2018 NY Slip Op 33281(U) October 15, 2018 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: 305739/2011 Judge: George J. Silver Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U),
More informationLugo v City of New York 2013 NY Slip Op 30267(U) January 29, 2013 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2010 Judge: Kathryn E.
Lugo v City of New York 2013 NY Slip Op 30267(U) January 29, 2013 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 105267/2010 Judge: Kathryn E. Freed Republished from New York State Unified Court System's
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
Guffy v. DeGuerin et al Doc. 138 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED June 19, 2017 David
More informationSTATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT LA CROSSE COUNTY. Involuntary Plaintiffs Case No. 13-CV-463 v. Case Code: 30101
STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT LA CROSSE COUNTY DANA M. SCHLICHT and KATELEY SCHLICHT, Plaintiffs, STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL, DEPT. OF HEALTH SERVICES and
More informationExpert Witnesses in Capital Cases. by W. Erwin Spainhour Senior Resident Superior Court Judge Judicial District 19-A May 10, 2012
Expert Witnesses in Capital Cases by W. Erwin Spainhour Senior Resident Superior Court Judge Judicial District 19-A May 10, 2012 1. Cost. A significant expense for the taxpayers paid by IDS. In one case,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION. v. Case No: 2:17-cv-656-FtM-29UAM OPINION AND ORDER
Goines v. Lee Memorial Health System et al Doc. 164 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION DONIA GOINES, Plaintiff, v. Case No: 2:17-cv-656-FtM-29UAM LEE MEMORIAL HEALTH
More informationBeing an Expert Witness
Being an Expert Witness New York State Association of Professional Land Surveyors 2015 Annual Conference January 22, 2015 What Purpose do Experts Serve? Witness competent to provide testimony Favorable
More informationBeasley v Asdotel Enters., Inc NY Slip Op 33192(U) November 5, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2008 Judge: Mary Ann
Beasley v Asdotel Enters., Inc. 2014 NY Slip Op 33192(U) November 5, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 310566/2008 Judge: Mary Ann Brigantti Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e.,
More informationMEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF S MOTION TO STRIKE
Neponset Landing Corporation v. The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company Doc. 67 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS NEPONSET LANDING CORPORATION, ) ) Plaintiff/Defendant-in-Counterclaim,
More informationBefore MICHEL, Circuit Judge, PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge, and LOURIE, Circuit Judge.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 02-1155 MICRO CHEMICAL, INC., Plaintiff- Appellee, v. LEXTRON, INC. and TURNKEY COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants- Appellants. Gregory A. Castanias,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION
J.B. v. Missouri Baptist Hospital of Sullivan et al Doc. 84 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION J.B., a minor, by and through his ) Next Friend, R ICKY BULLOCK, )
More informationQualifying a Witness as an Expert Using the Daubert Standard
Qualifying a Witness as an Expert Using the Daubert Standard The focus is not about qualifications of expert The focus is on the admissibility of the expert s opinion Michael H. Gottesman, Jason Daubert's
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS. MDL No SCHEDULING ORDER NO. 2
Case 2:14-md-02591-JWL-JPO Document 1098 Filed 10/21/15 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS IN RE SYNGENTA AG MIR162 CORN LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: Case
More informationSimpson v Alter 2011 NY Slip Op 31765(U) June 21, 2011 Supreme Court, Nassau County Docket Number: 11095/09 Judge: Thomas P. Phelan Republished from
Simpson v Alter 2011 NY Slip Op 31765(U) June 21, 2011 Supreme Court, Nassau County Docket Number: 11095/09 Judge: Thomas P. Phelan Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service.
More informationStein v Sapir Realty Management Corp NY Slip Op 31720(U) June 8, 2010 Sup Ct, Queens County Docket Number: 7699/2006 Judge: Orin R.
Stein v Sapir Realty Management Corp. 2010 NY Slip Op 31720(U) June 8, 2010 Sup Ct, Queens County Docket Number: 7699/2006 Judge: Orin R. Kitzes Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts
More informationMACIA HALL and RICHA HAL.
SHORT FORM ORDER SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK PRESENT: HON. DANIEL MATIN Acting Supreme Court Justice TRI/IAS, PART QUANNE TOMLINSON and CAROLINE THEAR. NASSAU COUNTY DILCIA DE LA CUESTA and
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MEMORANDUM ORDER
N THE UNTED STATES DSTRCT COURT FOR THE DSTRCT OF DELAWARE MiiCs & PARTNERS, NC., et al., v. Plaintiffs, FUNA ELECTRC CO., LTD., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 14-804-RGA SAMSUNG DSPLAY CO., LTD.,
More informationLong Is. Minimally Invasive Surgery, P.C. v Outsource Mktg. Solutions, Inc NY Slip Op 33751(U) March 5, 2012 Supreme Court, Nassau County
Long Is. Minimally Invasive Surgery, P.C. v Outsource Mktg. Solutions, Inc. 2012 NY Slip Op 33751(U) March 5, 2012 Supreme Court, Nassau County Docket Number: 5709-10 Judge: Steven M. Jaeger Cases posted
More informationAmchin v Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon of N.Y., Inc NY Slip Op 30524(U) February 22, 2011 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number:
Amchin v Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon of N.Y., Inc. 2011 NY Slip Op 30524(U) February 22, 2011 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 101307/09 Judge: Eileen A. Rakower Republished from New York
More informationMarathon Natl. Bank of New York v Greenvale Fin. Ctr., Inc NY Slip Op 31303(U) May 3, 2011 Supreme Court, Nassau County Docket Number:
Marathon Natl. Bank of New York v Greenvale Fin. Ctr., Inc. 2011 NY Slip Op 31303(U) May 3, 2011 Supreme Court, Nassau County Docket Number: 09-021794 Judge: Steven M. Jaeger Republished from New York
More informationThomas F. Liotti and The Law Office of Thomas F. Liotti is denied.
.:C-d/) SHORT FORM ORDER SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK Present: HON. STEVEN M. JAEGER, Acting Supreme Court Justice PARK NATIONAL BANK MOTION SUBMISSION DATE: 12-23- -against- Plaintiff JOSEPH LOPS,
More informationMarguerite v 27 Park Ave. LLC NY Slip Op 31408(U) June 25, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2012 Judge: Carol R.
Marguerite v 27 Park Ave. LLC. 2015 NY Slip Op 31408(U) June 25, 2015 Supreme Court, Ne York County Docket Number: 158628/2012 Judge: Carol R. Edmead Cases posted ith a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY
More informationAPPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Dane County: MARYANN SUMI, Judge. Reversed and cause remanded.
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED February 4, 2010 David R. Schanker Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
Brady et al v. Hospital Hima-San Pablo Bayamon et al Doc. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 0 MARÍA E. BRADY, et al., Plaintiffs v. HOSPITAL HIMA-SAN PABLO BAYAMÓN, et
More informationCase 2:14-cv SSV-JCW Document 130 Filed 06/09/15 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO:
Case 2:14-cv-00109-SSV-JCW Document 130 Filed 06/09/15 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA YOLANDE BURST, individually and as the legal representative of BERNARD ERNEST
More informationCase 1:12-cv JD Document 152 Filed 04/11/14 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Case 1:12-cv-00130-JD Document 152 Filed 04/11/14 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ) TOWN OF WOLFEBORO ) ) Civil No. 1:12-cv-00130-JD Plaintiff, ) v. )
More information