Gideon V. Mono-Mar Homes Inc. Summary

In Cizler, a wrongful death action had been dismissed, before submission to the jury, for failure of proof. At the time of the trial the plaintiff, despite a diligent search for eyewitnesses to the automobile accident, could find none. The plaintiff afterwards found such an eyewitness and moved for a new trial. The court found the requirements of what is now paragraph 2 satisfied and granted the plaintiff's motion, but with the condition that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs and disbursements to date (including appeal costs).

Petitioner’s appeal from a denial of that motion was dismissed by the Court of Appeals without any prejudice to relief under the Maryland. The petition for post- conviction relief was dismissed by the trial court; and on appeal the Court of appeals held that suppression of the evidence by the prosecution denied petitioner due process of law and remanded the case for a retrial of the question of punishment, not the question of guilt.

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.

On a consolidated appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed in part and remanded. (721 F2d 550) The court held that Loudermill and Donnelly had been deprived of due process and that their compelling private interest in retaining employment, combined with the value of presenting evidence prior to dismissal, outweighed the added administrative burden of a pretermination hearing. The court affirmed the district court’s

Pursuant to Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 927, Defendant, Lauris Hollis (“Defendant”), through undersigned counsel, moves this Court to dismiss the Plaintiff’s action. Article 927 provides that the Peremptory exception of no cause of action and no right of action or no interest in the plaintiff to institute suit. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 923 provides that the function of the peremptory exception is to have the plaintiff’s action declared legally nonexistent, or barred by effect of law, and hence the exception tends to dismiss or defeat the action.

Public defenders have a tough job defending their indigent clients. In an ideal scenario, they are to defend their clients in a zealous manner. Unfortunately for the clients, most cases end via plea bargains . For cases that do make it to court, some clients find their attorney lacking in many respects . This is because the Supreme Court case Gideon v Wainwright only guarantees the right to an attorney. Unfortunately, that right does not extend to a quality lawyer or defense . I intern at the Orange County Public Defender’s office, where the clients are poor and homeless. As such, they cannot hire their own lawyers and must rely on free legal representation from the office’s attorneys. But just like other Public Defenders across the U.S.,

Procedural History: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia granted judgment in favor of defendants. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that the respondents’ refusal to pay the

In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the case begins with Gideon arrest in 1961. Clarence Earl Gideon was a drifter who was in and out of prison for nonviolent crimes. On January 3, 1961, 51-year-old Gideon was charged with breaking and entering into a Bay Harbor Pool Room in Panama City, Florida with the intent to commit a misdemeanor, which is a felony under Florida law. Giedion was charged with a felony in the state of Florida. Gideon appeared in the Florida court and informed the judge that he would like to be appointed counsel because he could not afford one. The judge denied Gideon’s request to be appointed an attorney. The courts stated that under Florida law the only time an indigent defendant is entitled to be appointed counsel is when

Plaintiff filed this motion for summary judgment on November 17, 2014. The Court heard oral argument on December 15, 2014, and took the matter under submission. For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants the motion.

R. Civ. P. 56(c), “mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case. . .” "[E]xistence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment.” The burden shifts to the non-movant party after it is discovered no cause of action has been established.

Prior to Miranda vs Arizona, Gideon vs Wainwright had clarified a defendant’s right to counsel, this was also later solidified in Escobedo vs Illinois. The Miranda Court upheld these ruling due to its primary concern being with “procedural safeguards” and ensuring that all defendants had a fairer trial.

Johnson further contends that the circuit court abused its discretion by failing to exclude the Notice to Defendant and the OPD Form because the documents’ probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Specifically, Johnson asserts that the documents should have been excluded because they indicate that he had a pending criminal case, and that they indicate that he is indigent. The State, for its part, asserts that the documents were critical to establish that the contraband at issue here belonged to Johnson, and that any prejudice may have suffered did not substantially outweigh the evidence’s probative value. We agree with the State.

The court in this case examined two elements to find out whether the motion to dismiss should be granted or not. First, whether the law of state which asserts that "every foreign corporation shall be subject to suit in the state by a resident of this state or by a person having a usual place of business in this state... or foreign commerce, on any cause of action arising as follows ... 2- out of any business solicited in this state by mail or otherwise if the corporation has repeatedly solicited business.." includes the defendant. Secondly, the court must consider whether the constitutional due process was violated or not when applying the law of state . The plaintiff claimed that the defendant has solicited business in East Carolina by

In an attempt to justify impermissibly combining an anticipatory repudiation claim and a constructive eviction claim—two theories of relief that require different elements to be proved—into a single count, Plaintiffs rely on stale case law that is at least sixty five years old. Although they acknowledge that section 2-603(b) requires a separate cause of action to be alleged in a different count, they offer no justification for ignoring the provision’s unambiguous directive. As discussed above, proper pleadings are vital to the effective and efficient administration of justice. Neither this Court nor Defendants should be required to decipher a count that jumbles together two separate

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.