Case Observation Paper

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).

El Chico Corp., 732 S.W.2d 306. For instance, in Bruce, the court held that the inebriated state of a pair of customers of the defendant’s restaurant may be deemed to have been sufficiently apparent to the restaurant based on circumstantial evidence alone even if the defendant had not possessed actual knowledge of the pair’s condition. Bruce v. K.K.B., Inc., 52 S.W.3d 250 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 2001). The plaintiffs in Bruce suffered serious injuries after his car was struck by an intoxicated driver (a member of the aforementioned pair), who die died in the crash, who was driving home from the defendant’s restaurant. Id. In spite of testimony to the contrary by both the restaurant’s employees and the surviving member of the pair, the court held that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to exhibit that the driver had been “obviously intoxicated to the extent that she presented a clear danger to herself and other” at the time of service. Id. Analogously, in Perseus, the inebriated nature of a patron of the defendant’s bar was deemed to have been sufficiently apparent to the defendant, even if the defendant lacked actual knowledge of the patron’s condition, since the defendant should have had knowledge of the customer’s condition. Perseus, Inc. 995 S.W.2d 202. The defendants in Perseus. were sued after the aforementioned patron hit and killed two people after leaving

G: CM met with client for weekly case management session and to update ISP goals.

The student 's motion for summary judgment was granted by the court and dismissed Drakers claims against the students for defamation and libel per se. The students and their families then had to file another motion for summary judgment regarding Draker’s remaining claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil conspiracy, and negligence. Once this happened, Draker filed her third amended petition alleging the students only for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence and gross negligence as to the parents. Eric Goldman states, “the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was dismissed because under TX law the cause of action is a gap-filler, and there was no gap given that the defamation doctrine putatively governs these facts.” Along with her third amended petition, Draker filed a motion for continuance. This motion would give her more time to look into the facts of her remaining claims. This motion was denied by the trial court. Along with the denial of Drakers motion, the court granted the Schreibers ' and the Todds ' motion for summary judgment. Draker argues that the trial court made three mistakes. These mistakes, as listed in the case are (1) granting summary judgment in favor of the students on her claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress; (2) granting summary judgment in favor of the parents on her claims of negligence and gross negligence; and (3) denying her motion for continuance and

The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s Americans with Disability Act claim. The plaintiff’s is not estopped by her SSDI and long term disability claims.The court foreclosed to grant the plaintiff new trial. The appellate court the district court’s ruling.

an explanation of why and how each decision was made throughout the entire trial. The basis

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.

GSMC and Ocwen objected to the statement and the objection was sustained. “[W]ith respect to evidentiary rulings on admissibility generally and rulings with respect to relevance specifically, the trial judge is vested with wide, wide discretion.” Schmitt v. State, 140 Md. App. 1, 17 (2001). Here, Sucklal was prohibited from testifying as to the contents of the correspondence because Md. Rule 5-1002 requires that “[t]o prove the content of a writing . . ., the original writing . . . is required, except as otherwise provided in these rules or by statute.” Likewise, Sucklal was prohibited from testifying as to statements made by the author of the correspondence because Md. Rule 5-802 generally prohibits the admission of “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Md. Rule 5-801(c). Finally, litigants must be afforded “a reasonable opportunity to present material that may be pertinent to the court’s decision as required by Maryland Rule 2-501.” Balt. Street Builders v. Stewart, 186 Md. App. 684, 691 (2009). Sucklal, however, was not denied an opportunity to oppose GSMC and Ocwen’s motion for summary judgement. Indeed, Sucklal failed to respond to the motion for summary

Summary judgment is a procedural device used during civil litigation to promptly and expeditiously dispose of a case without a trial. It is used when there is no dispute as to the material facts of the case and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter law. And the veredict against the other defendant was $30,000 while the plaintiff asked for $40,000.

According to CCP §437c, if there is a single issue of material fact, a motion (for summary judgment) must be denied. Tommy did provide sufficient material facts to allow a jury to find in his favor. Specifically by relaying the facts that Peter Plaintiff’s collision with Jack was too remote for liability to be put on Tommy and that Tommy did not knowingly furnish alcohol to Jack, demonstrating that there was not a prima facie violation of Cal. Civil Code §1714.3 Therefore, the court erred in granting Peter Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and this court must reverse that wrong.

Paul Keller is a countdown technician for the Cape Kennedy complex in Brevard County, Florida. Mr. Keller, his wife Naomi, and their young daughter moved from Minneapolis during the Space Age. Hoping the relocation and the new job would make their family problems disappear, Mr. Keller embraced the challenges at work.

Rue 21 is one of the many retailers that are geared towards teens, however what set them apart from the rest is their affordability. This company strives to keep all of its merchandise under 35 dollars. Rue 21 has locations in various strip malls with 52 percent, regional mall 31 percent and outlet centers 17 there are pros and cons that affect the company for each of them (Berman, 2009). Having this store in a strip center can be a really great thing for consumers put not such a positive thing for the company as a whole. The positive to a strip mall is that it is easily accessible for customers to find and shop at the location. Strip malls have less congestion when it comes to parking, which makes for a more pleasurable for shoppers like

This worker met with ELLIE SWANSON at her home. Her mother Ms. ROBYN was present. Privacy practices and Tennessen notices were reviewed verbally. The interview was recorded.

1 I would definitely describe Greg Mortenson as an “Authentic Leader”. In our text authentic leadership is described as a type of leadership that can be nurtured, and develops over a lifetime, can be triggered by major life events, and that a leader’s behavior is grounded in strong ethics. The definition continues on to say that there are four authentic leadership components: Self-awareness, Internalized moral perspective, meaning knows the right thing to do and is driven by ethics and fairness, balanced processing, meaning they are fair minded and open to others, and they possess relational transparency, meaning they are honest and