The Plaintiff's Case

Legal research is not only about discovering how the law applies, it is also about determining how strong case is. Using legal research we are analyzing strength and weaknesses of client’s case, and using counteranalysis we determine how opponent can use weaknesses against us. In this paper we will establish why counteranalysis is important and why do we use it, when we use it and where we can apply it.

The definition of a lawsuit is a civil action brought in court in which a plaintiff demands another person, known as the defendant, pay this person equitable resolve (dictionary.com). In other words they want payment for being wronged in the past. If the case is found to be legitimate and proven justifiable, the defendant pays the plaintiff the awarded compensation. This brings us to the story, The Lawsuit, by Naguib Mahfouz. This tale is about a son being sued by his father’s widow demanding maintenance be paid to her some twenty years after the father’s death. Several of the individuals in this story serve very little purpose.

Defendant submits the following Memorandum in Opposition to the Plaintiff’s motion to amend their complaint.

The Woburn case is an example of a complex tort case. A tort case involves any personal injury someone sustains due to the negligence of someone else. The plaintiff is taxed to prove three features: the defendant must have a duty of care for the plaintiff, the defendant breached this duty of care, and general causation. Without general causation, the defendant could have a duty of care and breached this duty of care, but there would not be a tort case only with the association between the defendant’s behavior and the personal injury sustained by the plaintiff.

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.

Plaintiff claims false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and assault. Per the Law Department abstract, officers, including Det. Hernandez were executing a search warrant. Officers entered the apartment and brought everyone inside the apartment into the living room including plaintiff and handcuffed. Everyone including plaintiff were searched. Officers recovered marijuana from separately apprehended Jeffrey McCaskill’s person. Plaintiff was transported to the precinct 48 pct. Plaintiff states officers removed her from the holding celling, assaulted by officers, and placed in shackles. Plaintiff allegedly bended Det. Moises Martinez left hand causing injury when he tried to place in shackles. Plaintiff was re-arrest for assault.

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?

Defendant SARAH MINER, owner, and operator of the Portola apartment complex, recently denied Plaintiff DARLAWILLIAMS, a former tenant, application to continue leasing her unit in 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 (Exhibit 1) 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

In this case, the Department sent the notice on May 5, 2016 denying the Appellant’s application for MA/LTC benefits. The Appellant’s appeal was filed September 14, 2016, one-hundred and thirty-three (133) days after the Department issued its Notice. Since the appeal was filed more than thirty (30) days after the Department issued its notice, the appeal was untimely filed.

The Eleventh Circuit lacks caselaw on the issue; however, federal authority favors excluding third parties from a Rule 35 independent medical examination.

A special prosecutor will be assigned to a case involving a local attorney who allegedly assaulted another man at the Wayne County Courthouse the morning of March 11.

Would filing a diversity jurisdiction lawsuit in federal district court in the Southern District of Florida result in Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. §1927, or some other violations when the defendant resides in Minnesota? It depends. It depends on whether the court will exercise discretion to sanction. The court would likely to sanction Ms. Rodriguez’s lawyer under Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. §1927 due to the motives of “home court” advantage and to inconvenience Paulsen. Ms. Rodriguez has meet subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction can be waived by Paulsen as can venue, and the choice of law would be Minnesota state law since the contract was created and breached in Minnesota.

On November 2, 2000 Erma Stewart was arrested along with twenty six others because authorities were under the suspicion that they had been involved with the distribution of an illegal substance. Stewart was jailed and had her bond set to $70,000. She was then appointed a public defender to handle her case. However, Stewart claims that the attorney pressured her into pleading guilty despite her insistence that she was innocent. After spending a month in jail with the knowledge that her children had no to look after them, due to her being a single parent, Stewart conceded and plead guilty to the charges. She was made to pay a fine of $1,000 and was sentenced to 10 years of probation.

There are three cases highlighted in this snippet of a long and drawn out court battle. (Does the group agree that there are 3 separate cases?)

COMES NOW the Plaintiff/Assignee, Richard Twigg being sworn respectfully requestS the Court to compel completion and the appearance of Defendant Edward M. Colson; on “Notice of Filing” of 1.977 Fact Information Sheet, to being complete as to the Court's Order - dated July 19, 2010.