Arguments For Plaintiffs ' Motion Attorneys ' Fees And Costs

For summary judgment to be granted, the movant must show “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The appellate standard of review for reviewing summary judgment orders in this case is the de novo standard, as this is a decision regarding “mixed questions of law and fact”. Barr v. Lafon, 538 F.3d 554, 562 (6th Cir. 2008).

1. The first issue is whether the trial court erred in denying Greer's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Mr. Austin's will contest was barred by T.C.A. § 32-4-108 (Supp. 1991).

If Mr. Grant’s rights were violated under s.24 (2) of the Charter, should the evidence be inadmissible at trial?

In the case of Bruce and Douglas [2014] FamCA80, proceedings relate to parenting arrangements for the child L Douglas, between the applicant Ms Bruce, who is the child’s mother, and the respondent Mr Douglas, who is the child’s father. The child, aged two and a half years at the time of the hearing, has lived with her mother since her birth in April 2011, and has spent very limited time with her father. The mother seeks orders that the child

11. The Division is permitted access to Ms. Gueits’ home and shall make a child welfare referral to Florida regarding housing assistance and services being implemented for the children once physical custody is transferred to Ms.

DISPOSITION:  [**1]  Defendant 's motion to compel Brennan to arbitrate denied. Brennan 's cross-motion to strike the defense of arbitration and stay arbitration granted.

The motion for partial summary for the plaintiff was denied by the court and the objection was overruled without prejudice to raise the issue for consideration at trial.

Reviewing the dispositions, the court denies plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment on both its first and second causes of action….

In contrast, the case In Re Southard, 365 P.3d 1089 (2015), the court found that the nonparent should have custody of the child due to a child-parent relationship. In this case, the mother had married two men Southard and Larkins twice. Southard, 365 P.3d at 1092. The result of these multiple unions was three children. Southard, 365 P.3d at 1092. At the end the mother’s fourth marriage with Southard, he received custody of all three children including AR who was not Southard’s biological child, but Larkins. Id. The mother petitioned for custody, but custody was denied. Id. The court found that Southard had physical custody of AR for a year and had developed a child-parent relationship. Id. The court also decided that the time Southard spent with AR were not caused by custodial inference, but by the marriage of the mother and Southard. Id. at 105.

Plaintiff claims false arrest and malicious prosecution. Plaintiff states he was arrested for criminal possession of marijuana however no marijuana was recovered. PO Hernandez, PO Bonet, and PO Heredia were members of the anti-crime in PSA 6. Officers observed via Viper camera plaintiff and two other apprehended individuals smoking marijuana in the park behind a housing project. Officers approached plaintiff and two individuals and conducted a stop and frisk. Officers did not recover any contraband or marijuana was recovered. Plaintiff and the two individuals were transported to the precinct where a bag of marijuana was recovered during a search at the precinct. Officers could not determine ownership of the marijuana therefore all three were

The Defendant has attempted several times attempted to contact the Plaintiff concerning reunification therapy and the status of his daughter. The Plaintiff has refused to return any of his phone calls and has refused to inform him about anything concerning his daughter.

Id. at 67. The Court stated that the statute allowed the judge to “disregard and overturn a fit custodial parent concerning visitation whenever a third party affected by the decision files a visitation petition, based solely on the judge’s determination of the child’s best interests”. Id.

Plaintiff intend to conduct discovery procedure in this case under Level II of New York Rule of Civil Procedure 190.4 because she seek monetary relief aggregating more than $50,000, and request that the Court enter a Discovery Control Plan and place this case on Level II because the issues in dispute are complex and the claim will be better resolved in accordance with a discovery plan specifically tailored by the Court for the disposition of this case.

The proceeding was on the stage of direct examination and cross examination, when plaintiff’s lawyer and defendant’s lawyer question