Defendant Griffin Case Brief

Background: Based on the given complaint, on the 28th of March in 2014 the Plaintiff, Linda D. Daugherty suffered an injury on the property of Rauleigh J. Ringer at 814 N. Liberty Street, Alexandria, IN. She is claiming her injury was a result of negligence spawning from the actions, or lack thereof, by Mr. Ringer and Casual Lifestyles Realty, Inc., in which the connection of these three parties has not been clarified with certainty within the claim. The Defendants, by counsel, Mark Maynard, and, pursuant to Rule 12(E) of the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure, moved for a more definite statement of the Plaintiff’s Complaint. Mark Maynard argues if said Plaintiff could amend her complaint that is supposedly so vague and ambiguous, the newfound clarity would help the defense frame a response to said Plaintiff’s claim. No other information could be

Now through undersigned counsel, come Defendant, Lauris Hollis ("Defendant"), who respectfully request that this Court grant their Motion for Summary Judgment dismissing the Plaintiff 's claims against him. Defendant move this Court for a Summary Judgment on the grounds that the Plaintiff has no cause of action, no right of action or no interest in the plaintiff to institute the suit and it should be dismissed.

Defendant Dr. Brandon Iron respectfully moves the Court, pursuant to Rule 3212(a) of the New York Civil Practice Law & Rules, to grant a motion for Summary Judgement in response to Plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress Claim. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Iron intentionally inflicted emotional distress while performing a surgical procedure. Iron contends that the marking does not satisfy the extreme and outrageous behavior element. Absent such extreme and outrageous behavior, the cause of action cannot survive as a matter of law and the defendant should be granted a Motion for Summary Judgment.

The act of the defendant, Moore, was intentional and harmful contact took place causing apprehension among the plaintiff. The apprehension was not caused by negligent behavior. The apprehension the plaintiff felt started with a threat following a previous meeting between the two teams and escalated into a physical altercation (Cotten, 2013).

V: Hannah Michelle Jones, WF/25 DOB 3-28-1990, PO Box 798 Topeka, Ks 66601, WSU ID J653Q575, S# 509-04-7537, 5'06''/140, Bro/Bro, K02-21-4734

Plaintiff moves this court for an order Terminating child support and alimony. The Plaintiff shows the court that:

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

Plaintiff further asserts that the Defendant breached its duty of care to her by: (1) “failing to fix a hazardous condition within a reasonable time;” (2) “failing to adequately warn plaintiff of a hazardous condition;” and (3) “otherwise failing to exercise reasonable and due care under the circumstances.” The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in the amount of two hundred thousand dollars, plus interest and costs.

Were any injuries suffered? If so, who? If not, how did the Plaintiffs fail to prove injury?

When it comes to a lawsuit which can include civil lawsuits, there is more than one party that is being sued. When a person files for a civil lawsuit the police department, policy makers, and at times the police officer is being sued for any unlawful actions that were against that person or person’s property. This can cause a problem for the department and all parties that are involved with the training of the police officer. As a police officer, you can be sued when in uniform or when you are in civilian clothes depending on the words that the person says. This will be discussed further into the paper. What can be concluded from the lawsuit is, was the police officer properly trained?

Key Facts: Plaintiff and defendants went on a hunting trip. Plaintiff explained them safety rules and instructed them to be careful when shooting. However, while hunting, defendants fired in Plaintiff direction, injuring him in his right eye and face. It was unknown which pellet was fired by who. The plaintiff brought suit for negligence against both defendants.

12. The Defendants’ showed bad faith, breaking the said agreement and wanting the Plaintiff to lift heavy Household items with unreasonable safety conditions, unsafe environment, and gross negligence and not providing reasonable and adequate equipment and people for the said move. Especially for someone that is already disabled under federal and state laws, grossly injuring, exploiting and tricking the already Disabled Plaintiff and knowingly disregarding all reasonable safety practices

Uniqua’s left cheek was served nerves on Uniqua’s face causing permanent paralysis of the left side. Also, she developed a permanent 3 inch scar on her face. By relating the damages to that of Bates (Guardian of) v. Horkoff 4, defendant will have to pay for general damages of approximately $8,500 for permanent scar on the face and the loss of sensation and movement of left side. Bob will also pay for the underwent extensive physiotherapy.

after 10 years of service.” Caroline said, “I am sorry, but at this time there is nothing.” Then the Plaintiff requested, “Can I maybe go full time?” Caroline said, “Sorry. I can’t do that, because you have no future with our company, you will have to look elsewhere.” Plaintiff said, “I have the ability to take on more challenging work and move to the next level. I would like to take on more responsibilities in the department, because I have obtained qualifications and skills to do them.” Caroline said, “Due to the company’s situation with the merger and what Tony had told me about your communication and performance, I can’t help you at this time.” I said, “Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak with you. I hope that in the

1. Negligence / Personal Injury - 2 Years with Modified Discovery Rule (knew or should have known injury was wrongfully caused even if plaintiff did not know it was actionable). (statutes of limitations).