Case Study: Alvas V. Defendants

In the Spring of 1984, May 23rd, felling like San Antonio v. Rodriguez was an unacceptable decision, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed a suit against William Kirby, the commissioner of education, in behalf of the Edgewood Independent School District. MALDEF’s main concern was the way Texas funds public school, they pointed out the fact that he poorest districts in the state, had $38,854 in property wealth per student, while the Alamo Heights ISD, which is in the same county, had $570,109 per student. (TSHA, 2017) Furthermore, property-poor districts had a higher set tax rate that would amount to an average 74.5 cents per $100 a valuation to generate $2,987 per pupil, while richer districts, with a tax rate of half

Throughout the course of this investigation, the following courthouse was researched to locate any all court documentation for Dennis Baker and Charlotte Baker, as the search was expanded to include Shawna Thornton’s affiliation with the Bakers’.

Decide which witnesses could support the prosecution’s case and which witnesses would support the defense’s case. How does Search and Seizure relate to the B.I.G. case?

The Bureau of Hearings and Appeals may allow appeals nunc pro tunc (allow a hearing on the appeal as if it had been submitted timely) only upon a showing of fraud or the equivalent, including the wrongful or negligent act of [an] official, Wess v. Commonwealth, Department of Public Welfare, 462 A.2d 955, 957 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983); or in non-negligent circumstances where the appeal is filed within a short time after the appellant learns of and has an opportunity to address the untimeliness, and the elapsed time period is of very short duration, and the appellee is not prejudiced by the delay. Cook v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 671 A.2d 1130 (Pa. 1996).

Therefore, this is a final order and it was proper for the father to file his Notice of Appeal within 30 days from March, 16, 2016. The father entered the Notice of Appeal on March 26, 2016, ten (10) days after. Consequently, this Court has jurisdiction to heard this case, which was filed in a timely manner.

does not present a justiciable issue); Di Portanova v. Monrow, 229 S.W.3d 324, 329 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.], 2006, pet. denied) (beneficiary could not bring declaratory judgment action to resolve dispute over how trustee should exercise discretion given to trustee in the trust instrument). Here, no justiciable conflict exists because Texas law clearly establishes that Plaintiff has no equitable (or legal) interest in the settlement funds paid by Geico to St. David’s.

The Defendant, George Tiba (“Defendant Tiba”) and L.A. were both at a local bar, Walrus, on the night of Feb. 16, 2013. Walrus is a commonly known as a college bar, often filled with students from the University of Colorado. Defendant Tiba offered to purchase beverages for L.A. and her friend, who both accepted. Afterwards, Defendant Tiba continued to make inappropriate contact and statements to L.A. during their time at the bar. After a period of time, Defendant Tiba drove L.A. back to her apartment where the offenses occurred early in the morning on Feb. 17, 2013. L.A. went to the hospital later in the day on Feb. 17, where a SANE examination was conducted by a SANE certified nurse. From the evidence collected, the District Attorney commenced

Again, it would appear from the plan language of the complaint, that Petitioner’s issue b is that the District failed to

The trial court erred and abused its discretion in granting the State’s motion to admit evidence of prior uncharged incidents of domestic violence, because the evidence denied Mr. Davis of his rights to due process of law as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and Article I, Section 10 of the Missouri Constitution, in that the evidence was more prejudicial than probative because it was too remote in time to be relevant to the charged crimes and had a prejudicial effect.

While at GPM, I attended a session of Treatment Accountability Court (“TAC”) (formerly Mental Health Court) and DUI/Drug Court. Both Courts operate similarly. Several hours before the court session, members of the legal community meet to discuss the progress of each participate scheduled to appear that day. Legal representatives include members from the Sheriff’s Office, Solicitor General’s Office, Public Defender’s Office, the judge who presides over the proceeding, a Program Coordinator & Counselor, a misdemeanor probation officer, and a felony probation officer. The group discusses the status of each participate and whether they’re meeting the conditions set forth by the court. The programs are conducted in phases,

Now comes the Defendant, Joseph Bettina, files this Motion For temporary Support and would shows:

I returned Ms Dunlap call. She said wants to place a formal complaint against the CPS worker Miranda Larson because she illegally removed her children based on false accusations. She stated that Miranda, like the entire CW are doing criminal activities. She then asked me if I had talked to her attorney? What was my conversation about, What did I disclose to them? What did they told me about her? "Be honest" she said. I informed her that I do contact her attorney because in one her DHS 0170 form the Discrimination Complaint form, she provided us her attorney's phone number and my conversation was about how can we contact her. She said that we should not be talking to her attorney because she just fired her.

Legal Issue: Does having religious holiday displays near or on government buildings violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

On the issue of timeliness, the PA IEB Representative RH testified that the Appellant was issued a notice on July 20, 2017, again on August 16, 2017 based on the Appellant’s request, and then again on September 13, 2017, based upon the Appellant’s request. The PA IEB’s position is that the appeal is untimely filed as the notice was issued three times before receiving the appeal on September 25, 2017.

"The Company Act 2006 has significantly altered the position of outsiders as far as transactions with the company are concerned."