Albert Waltham Case

Facts: Peter Dementas was a good friend of Jack Tallas. Over the last decade or so of Jack Tallas’ life, Peter Dementas cared for him and helped him with both business and personal errands. Jack Tallas was an insurance agent and landlord and frequently had Peter do things for him such as, “picking up his mail, taking him to the grocery store, and assisting with the management of his rental properties” (Dementas v. Estate of Tallas). Because of Peter’s help, Jack Tallas wrote a memo stating he wanted to give $50,000 to Peter Dementas and was going to add that to his will. Jack never added that memo to his will so Dementas’ claim was negated. The courts

Repyneck recalls in 2011 she was going through a divorce from her husband Michael Ziegler. Repyneck was having financial problem and she was advised to seek a bankruptcy lawyer. Repyneck was scheduled for a hearing in Hellertown on Wednesday and her divorce attorney recommended David Tidd from Hellertown. She called Tidd, she thought it was either Sunday or Monday, and he told her to bring a payment to retain him to his office on Tuesday and he would make the hearing on Wednesday go away. After she went to his office, Tidd told her she wouldn’t have to appear in court on Wednesday, that he would take care of it.

that Lang could not sue in the state of North Carolina court as Lang had failed to obtain a

Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the Defendants was the agent and employee of each of the remaining Defendants and was at all times acting within the purpose and scope of such agency and employment.

Lastly, John and Mary Doe, a married couple, filed a companion complaint, connecting their case to that of Roe’s. They were seeking declaratory and injunctive help and they made the District attorney the defendant. Both, John and Mary

Mr. Wayne Bias’, the non-custodial parent, testimony revealed that DHR levied his wife’s, Venita Bias, bank account and that she has proof that the money that was levied is not his. He also stated his name was associated with the account.

process for obtaining witnesses in his favor and to have the assistance of counsel for his

If you contend that the Plaintiff has made an admission, or declaration against interest, please state the substance of the alleged admission or declaration together with the time and place of the alleged admission or declaration and the names and addresses and telephone numbers of the persons, if any, who were present.

1. Provide a brief summary of the background, charges, and trial of this high-profile court case.

Me: “On the plaintiff side, Sandra and all of her kids deposed. Dr. DeVere White’s lawyer is the one who questions them under oath. His name is Mr. Tom Minder. On the defendant side, Dr.DeVere White is the only one who deposed. He was questioned by Mr. Kelly.”

Harding further asks us to confirm that the trial judge complied with the requirements of Md. Rule 14-305(e) when she ratified the foreclosure sale. Furthermore, Harding petitions us to subpoena certain phone calls made between her and M & T Bank officials. Harding’s requests, however, are not properly presented before this appellate court. Moreover, Harding has failed to present an argument that would overcome the presumption of legitimacy we afford to the ratification of a foreclosure sale.

The video deposition of plaintiff, Susan White, took place at her home at 321 S. Alleghany Ave., Tulsa, OK, on October 5, 2016. The deposition was attended in person by her attorney, and the attorneys representing American Airlines and Sunoco. Several of the attorneys representing other defendants attended via telephone. The great majority of those attorneys had entered into a stipulation with the plaintiffs that Mrs. White would not be able to testify as to whether Mr. White ever worked for them, worked at their facility or was exposed to one of their products.

The plaintiff, a mechanic, filed for a summary judgment against the defendant, the Bank of Babylon, for failure to honor their obligation to render payment for an official check that was drawn against their bank and due payable to his business. The official check was purchased by the plaintiff after cashing a check that was issued from a mutual client of his and the bank, who later attempted to place a stop order on the already cashed check. Then defendant argues that there is “failure of consideration” and they are not obligated to issue payment since the client, SCI had stopped payment on the personal check which was exchanged for the official check.

Although I had arrived after the case had begun, I had a little bit of background knowledge and could easily follow what was going on. The case was between Joseph B. McCarthy and his ex-wife, Annie J. Ashment McCarthy. Joseph was the defendant, and Annie was the plaintiff. Annie had a lawyer by her side, and Joseph stood alone. Annie’s lawyer was Brad E. Macdonald. The defendant had failed to pay child support and owed his ex-wife an arrearage of thirty-thousand dollars.