The Discovery Dispute And Its Effect On The Status As A Non Party

The newly discovered evidence can't merely be “cumulative”, nor “such as would merely impeach the credibility of an adverse witness”. Cizler v. Cizler, 19 A.D.2d 819, 243 N.Y.S.2d 614 (1st Dept., 1963).

Johnson further maintains that the circuit court erred by admitting documents that were not properly authenticated. The State counters that “the appearance and contents of each of the documents contained sufficient information from which the factfinder could have reasonably concluded that the document was what the State purported it to be.” We hold that the documents admitted against Johnson were properly authenticated.

Citation: New Jersey v. T. L. O. 469 U.S. 325 105 S. Ct. 733; 83 L. Ed. 2d 720; 1985 U. S. LEXIS 41; 53 U.S.L.W. 4083.

be described. Jurisdictional requirements for this case as well as the reasons why it was heard at

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.

Kulbicki’s file stayed in the state court until 2006, when Kulbicki added an additional claim that his defense attorneys did not adequately question the legitimacy of the ballistics evidence presented by the CBLA. Kulbucki lost in the state courts and then appealed to the Court of Appeals of Maryland. The Court of Appeals then vacated Kulbucki’s conviction based on the fact that Kulbucki’s attorneys did not question the legitimacy of the ballistics evidence, thus the defense attorneys did not provide Kulbucki with effective assistance during the trial. However, the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a per curiam opnion, that the Court of Appeals based the decision to vacate Kulbicki’s conviction on contemporary views of ballistic evidence. Since there was no reason for counsel to investigate the validity of the ballistic evidence in 1995, the attorneys provided effective assistance to Kulbicki because effective assistance did not require attorneys to verify the legitimacy of the ballistic evidence (Maryland v. Kulbicki, 136 S. Ct. 2

Finally, Sucklal argues that she was denied an adequate opportunity to be heard with respect to the motions hearings on September 26, 2013, and September 5, 2014. At the outset we note that an appellant has a responsibility to cite us to “the facts material to a determination of the questions presented.” Md. Rule 8-504(a)(4). Indeed, “we cannot be expected to delve through the record to unearth factual support favorable to the appellant.” Rollins v. Capital Plaza Assoc., L.P., 181 Md. App. 188, 201 (2008). In her brief, Sucklal makes bald assertions that she was denied due process, but fails to articulate the specific circumstances that give rise to such claims. The deficiencies in the arguments notwithstanding, after a through review

This appeal is raised in the context of the trial court granting CHH’s motion for judgment. A motion for judgment is governed by Maryland Rule 2-519 which provides:

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

FACTS -- Subsequent to a failed attempt from the plaintiff to appeal and receive the right to a trial, Harold Caldwell filed a bill of review for a case that was decided with his absence due to a dearth of convenient notification. The contrasting party, Robert Barnes, declared that he hired private process server DeWayne Perdew, to deliver the summon to Caldwell and that the decision made by the lower courts is correct. The decision of lower courts was made during a pretrial hearing, denying Caldwell a trial.

The respondents, NFL, moved for a motion of summary judgment on the Section 1 claim, arguing it was immune from antitrust liability as a single entity. In response, American Needle sought a continuance and asked the U.S. District Court to allow discovery, a motion opposed by the

The basis of the rejection is documented in 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2313(a) and 2306a(f)(1) which authorize DCAA to subpoena objective factual documents that can be used to evaluate the "accuracy, completeness, and currency of cost or pricing

evidence with regard to the issue. The Supreme Court believed the respondent was denied due

You have asked me to analyze and determine whether the evidence that prosecution would like to introduce at trial can be admitted based on the Federal Rules of Evidence. Pursuant to your request, this memo includes my analysis, reasoning, and conclusions regarding the admissibility of such evidence.

This action would make the public aware that the company was not trying to hide something under the carpet and it was cooperating with the health department.