Plaintiff Case Study

The defendants wanted to apply reasonable principles in search of specific performance of the contract. The disposition of the immediate motion for partial summary judgment and objection was controlled. “The court found that although the doctrine of mutuality of remedies may be alive and well in Virginia in actions at law for damages, that was not the case where, regardless of a lack of support of remedy at the time the contract was created, complete performance may, if revealed, afford a party specific performance of the contract for the sale of land.”

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.

26) Defendant attempted to have Plaintiff put on unpaid leave, but the OAH denied the request.

Plaintiffs have moved to dismiss their action against the Defendants under K.S.A 60-241(b). Defendants have opposed this motion because they feel it would be unfair to them because 1) it would not settle the issues in the case, 2) it would deny the Defendants further discovery, and 3) it represents only a partial dismissal of the case because the Court would maintain the protective order. This memo is divided in two main parts. The first part discusses both dismissals without and with prejudice and considers the advantages and disadvantages of both. To choose, which to go with the main question will be balancing the risk of the Court imposing expenses as a condition of dismissal vs. the State foreclosing its ability to re-file

Plaintiff claims false arrest and excessive force. Plaintiff claims he was trying to enter his apartment building when was stopped by Det. Selwyn Fonrose and ordered to get on the floor. Plaintiff states Det. Fonrose forcibly put him on the ground and hit with a police radio. Plaintiff states he was arrested and taken to the precinct, then the hospital where he received staples to his head.

Defendant SARAH MINER (hereinafter “Ms. Miner,”) owner, and operator of the Portola complex, recently denied Plaintiff DARLAWILLIAMS’ (hereinafter “Plaintiff,”) a former tenant, application to continue leasing at the complex. As such, Plaintiff brought several suits (Exhibit 1) against Ms. Miner, alleging discrimination as the basis for her denial. The Plaintiff's case against Ms. Miner, however, is without merits. Plaintiff received several noise complaints (Exhibit 2) throughout her tenancy, disrupting the peaceful residential community. Moreover, Plaintiff failed to keep her unit in good condition, resulting in considerable damage to the unit and property.

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?

To sue in small claims court is required to find out whether your claim are meeting the

Defendants, Gerry Goldman and Mary Goldman, by their attorneys, ADLER, MURPHY, & MCQUILLEN LLP, and respectfully moves this Court to dismiss their the Fourth Amended Complaint with prejudice pursuant to section 2-603 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or in the alternative, dismiss Counts, IV, V, VI, VII and VIII of Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint pursuant to section 2-619.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-619.1 (West 2014)).

Defendant SARAH MINER, owner, and operator of the Portola apartment complex, recently denied Plaintiff DARLAWILLIAMS, a former tenant, application to continue leasing her unit at the complex. Plaintiff subsequently brought suit against Defendant, alleging discrimination as the basis for her denial. The Plaintiff 's case against Defendant, however, is without merit. Defendant denied Plaintiff 's application because she received several noise complaints throughout her tenancy, disrupting the peaceful residential community. Furthermore, Defendant denied Plaintiff 's application due to her failure to keep her unit in good condition; resulting in substantial damage to the unit and approximately $3,500 in repair costs.

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO SECTION 2-603 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, DISMISS COUNTS I, II, VI AND VII PURSUANT TO SECTION 2-619.1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

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

Reached East tamaki director as regard this phone is not fully visable Unpractical without a console and presently suspended and rendered unusable hence

WHEREAS, in the Suit, Plaintiffs seek to recover certain claimed losses and damages alleged to have arisen out of the Plaintiffs’ occupation of a rental apartment unit owned by Defendant (hereinafter, “the Event”);

Can you elect to recover your damages from the resort only, even though Tex and Rex were primarily responsible for your injuries?