Good Morning Ladies And Gentlemen Of The Jury

The Shin v. Akin case was presented to the Supreme Court of California due to the plaintiff, Shin, stating that the defendant, Akin, was negligent during playing golf at the Rancho Park golf course that resulted in his injury. The plaintiff stated that himself, the defendant, and a third party went to the golf course to play a round of golf. However, during the game, the plaintiff took a break to check his phone for message and take a water break. During the plaintiff’s break, the plaintiff decided to walk in front of the group and wait for them at the 13th hole, while the defendant and the third party was at the 12th hole proceeding to the 13th hole. The plaintiff states that as he was standing at the 13th hole, the defendant acknowledge his

The video deposition of plaintiff, Susan White, took place at her home at 321 S. Alleghany Ave., Tulsa, OK, on October 5, 2016. The deposition was attended in person by her attorney, and the attorneys representing American Airlines and Sunoco. Several of the attorneys representing other defendants attended via telephone. The great majority of those attorneys had entered into a stipulation with the plaintiffs that Mrs. White would not be able to testify as to whether Mr. White ever worked for them, worked at their facility or was exposed to one of their products.

Lacey, 262 Md. 94, 97-98 (1971). Moreover, as Van Royen demonstrates, that analysis has partially been borrowed from the criminal realm in order to determine whether there was an agreement. The distinction between these two analyses is that in a criminal conspiracy, the confederacy is the crime, that is, it is the ends of the analysis. In a civil conspiracy, however, the confederacy is merely a means to the end of determining the greater question of whether the confederacy is a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s damages. Accordingly, while the elements articulated in Lloyd, 397 Md. at 154, set forth a helpful framework within which to analyze a civil conspiracy, the overarching consideration is whether one who is not the principal actor in an event causing harm can nevertheless be said to be a proximate cause of the harm solely by means of their agreement. With these considerations in mind, the following is an assessment of the elements set forth in

This case is a small firm representing the plaintiffs against two big firms representing the defendants. Jan was quick to point out that the big firms are set up to be intimidating and appear powerful but not to be swayed by this and not be susceptible to their bullying. The first thing the defendants tried to do was use an old obscure rule, rule 11, to get the case thrown out of court on the grounds that it is frivolous since there is no evidence, no investigation and no research. The rule was so outdated that the motion was denied and the case could proceed. In order to proceed geological and engineering teams were assembled and began generating evidence and research. The legal team began their investigation by conducting depositions of the employees of the defendants. I liked how the movie showed the tactics attorney’s use while conducting depositions. The advice given to the deposed and the timing of the breaks is all strategy used to get what you need. The depositions aren’t getting a lot of solid information until Jan appeals to Mr. Love’s concern for his own family’s health and well-being. This information helps solidify their case against the tannery and proved that some of the statements made by other deposed employees were false and that really turned the tables in the plaintiffs favor. When the defense deposes the plaintiffs they find that there is no way they can let them testify or they will lose the

Mr. Werman is not likely to be found liable for Ms. Carlson’s accident. There are four elements for social host liability, (1) the host knew the guest was intoxicated, (2) the host furnished alcohol to the guest even after the guest was intoxicated, (3) the guest negligently drove intoxicated, (4) the host knew or should have known the guest would have driven. McGuiggan v. New York Telephone & Telephone Co., 398 Mass. 152, 496 N.E.2d 141 (Mass. 1986). Mr. Werman knew the guest was intoxicated. However, he did not provide Ms. Carlson with alcohol. Ms. Carlson negligently dove, but Mr. Werman could not foresee that Ms. Carlson would drive.

During the course of this trial, you saw how one man solved his 20 billion dollar problem. It was the prosecution’s burden to prove my client guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. As the defense, we carried no burden in today’s trial. However, you still saw that this was Dr. Nash’s problem, Dr. Nash’s plan, and Dr. Nash’s patsy.

Narrative...I had no clue what the objection meant. I tried finishing my story, but the same objection preyed on my ignorance. Cross was by no means better. The opposing attorney cornered me into answering yes or no to questions, preventing me from explaining myself.

I couldn’t recollect exactly what happened until I met with my lawyer who went over the details of a drunk driver hitting my car. During the deposition my attorney obtained information from me to prove the negligence of the defendant by claiming, the defendant negligent conduct in this case drunk driving was the cause of harm to myself and my family. After this experience I was captivated by my attorney’s efforts in trying to obtain justice for my family and myself for someone’s negligent behavior. At this moment, I decided I wanted to assist in obtaining justice for those in need.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, mi name is Nadelein Arteaga and it is a pleasure to represent Mrs. Liebeck on this case.

My palms are sweating, my legs are shaking, my mind is racing, and my chest is tightening. I feel butterflies begin to flutter in my stomach, and it feels as though the weight of the world is on my shoulders. “Closing argument,” the judge says to me. I must stand up now; I have to bring this home for my team. I feel like words cannot escape my mouth, but I manage to respond, “Yes, Your Honor.” While the jury is still writing comments for the defense’s closing argument, I attempt to conceal the anxiety. They look up expectantly, awaiting the beginning of my speech. I think back to myself as a timid elementary school student starring in the school play for the first time, and I realize how much I have grown since then. As soon as I gain the courage

As the opening statements were out Yuan was scared. Trevor Smith’s lawyer, Attorney Zac Martinez was just blowing up on how Alex did his wrong doing and should pay him the money. Yuan knew this wasn’t going right. Zen-Chang thought that Alex should plead guilty. He even tried to convince Alex, but nothing worked. After three hours the closing

Don’t ever threaten me again about free legal work. We have $12,643.05 to split BECAUSE OF ME. There’s a huge difference between trial law and paper law! You fell apart the first day of the trial, sounding inept, bland and completely lacking in self-confidence. While I was on the stand you sat there dumbfounded while I pleaded with my eyes for you to object! I finally had to object for myself, and Judge Stevens said, you can’t object for yourself, Mrs. Kolbus, that’s Mr. Kolbuses job. And yet you still sat there flummoxed, as Carney beat the hell out of me (scoring points left and right), UNTIL Judge Steven’s finally had to yell at him!!! I alone got the Freddie Watson case in without ANY help from you. I choose all the evidence, and got EVERYTHING I wanted in, including Chris Fromm’s testimony!!! You were worthless! When you were on the stand, it was the exact opposite, I scored points and rang bells to WIN the case, and everyone in that court room knows it!!!

The plaintiff bears the onus of proof for the first three requirements and the defendant for the final one.

The judge read to me the accusation that were made against me, and asked for the evidence to be presented. They had taken the store 's surveillance videos, and said that they had video evidence of what had happened. The judge then asked the cop to play the video, but there was a problem. The video had been encrypted with a password, and without the password, the video could not be watched. The judge ruled that this evidence was irrelevant until it could be used. The judge asked if there was any evidence to be presented. They had one more witness that went to the stand. The other attorney asked what he remembered about the morning of December 3, 2034. He said that he remembered being in the gas station, and seeing me beside the body

Your Honor, Ladies, and Gentlemen of the jury: This is a case between the US vs Jones. On October 24th, 2005, the defendant, Antoine Jones, was charged with the crime of drug possession after coming under the suspicion of trafficking in narcotics. The Police Department obtained a warrant valid for 10 days that authorizes the installation of a tracking device on Jones’s car in District of Columbia. However, the police installed the tracking device on the 11th day out of the jurisdiction of District of Columbia and therefore violating the warrant’s term. After nearly a month of investigating, Jones led the police to what seemed like a stash house containing $856k in cash and 97 kilos of cocaine. With the sufficient amount of evidence, the police