Wendy Ji's Lawsuit against the Emerald City Condominium Developers

Kevin Hirzel of CMDA recently scored an important victory for Michigan condominium associations in Cove Creek Condominium Association v Vistal Land & Home Development, L.L.C., et al., Oakland County Circuit Court Case No. 16-155706-CH (Order Granting Summary Disposition, Dated February 10, 2017). The Oakland County Circuit Court held that the 2016 amendment to MCL 559.167 does not re-create “need not be built” units on common element land that is owned by the co-owners. The ruling will have an impact on any incomplete condominium projects that contain “need not be built” units and also meet one of the following two (2) requirements:

This is a formal complaint submitted to BHP/DCA against Frank Pinelli, Quantum Developers LLC (Developer) Condominium Association: Cedar Woods Condominium Association (Board) and Jim Polos, Midlantic Property Management.

For all responses to each assignment, provide the rationale for your answers and any assumptions that you are making.

The Association alleged in its lawsuit that certain elements of the property were not constructed in a good and workmanlike manner including 1) failure to properly install and flash windows and other exterior penetrations; 2) properly caulk the exterior penetrations; 3) failure to properly install the weather resistive barrier; 4) failure to properly to install the stucco exterior; 5) failure to properly install the EIFS exterior and 6) failure to install brick exterior.

Facts: New London used their authority to take other individuals private property to try and sell them to some other private developers. The city of New London also thought that is was a great idea so that it could promote new jobs and that the tax revenues could increase. Kelo whose property was taken from them along with others ended up suing New London in the state court. The owners of the property’s that was taken believed that their Fifth Amendment right was violated, which gave them assurance the government couldn’t take their private property for the use of public without restitution. However the owners of the property put up a good argument about trying to take their private property to try and sell it to other private developers was

Howell Jewelry World vs. Jennifer Lawson is the legal subject and ramifications of breach of covenant not to compete. Analysis of Howell Jewelry World vs. Jennifer Lawson litigation before the presiding court contains submissions of facts, precedent cases of law, and facts to be determined. The memorandum will summarize with confidence a favorable ruling in Howell Jewelry World vs. Jennifer Lawson and Howell Jewelry vs. Triumph Jewels.

The reporter stated Mrs. Sterling has been arrested a total of five times. The last time she was arrested was 12/12/15. According to the reporter, Mrs. Sterling was arrested after she tried to outrun law enforcement in the parking lot of Wal-Mart. The reporter stated 3-4 days before the 12/12/15 arrest, Mrs. Sterling was arrested in Liberty, MS for shop lifting while Briana was present; Mrs. Sterling had Briana stealing things as well. The reporter stated there are concerns her sister may be using meth amphetamines because she hangs with a meth dealer and she’s abusing her children’s Adderal. Per the reporter, she’s tried several times to keep her sister out of jail and get her help, but Shelly isn’t interested in helping herself. The reporter

Kelo v. City of New London 545 U.S. 469 (2005) the U.S. Supreme Court answered “yes” to the question of whether or not taking land for the sole purpose of economic improvement would fall into the realm of public use requirement set forth in the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.

On Wednesday, 10/11/2016, I, Deputy Stacy Stark #1815 received a telephone call from Elaine B. Green (F/W, DOB: 07/03/1962). Green advised, her mother, Evelyn A. Yates (F/W, DOB: 06/19/2016) was a victim of a theft from her residence. Green requested I take the police report because I was familiar with the parties involved due to a report I took on 10/07/2016. See Case Number: 2016-7575. Green believed the suspect was Yates’s grandson, Christian C. Kistner (M/W, DOB: 11/18/1995).

Ling Nan ZHENG, Ren Zhu Yang, Yun Zhen Huang, Wen Qin Lin, Sai Bing Wang, Ye Biao Yang, Cui Zhen Lin, Rong Yun Zheng, Hui Fang Lin, Xiu Ying Zheng, Jin Ping Lin, Hui Ming Dong, Yu Bing Luo, Sau Chi Kwok, Sai Xian Tang, Yi Zhen Lin, Rui Fang Zhang, Mei Juan Yu, Mei Ying Li, Qin Fang Qiu, Yi Mei Lin, Mei Zhu Dong, Fung Lam, Xiu Zhu Ye, Sing Kei Lam, and Xue Jin Lin, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LIBERTY APPAREL COMPANY INC., Albert Nigri, and Hagai Laniado, Defendants-Cross-Claimants-Appellees, Ngon Fong Yuen, 88 Fashion Inc., Top Five Sportswear, Inc., S.P.R. Sportswear, Inc. and 91 Fashion, Inc., Defendants, Lai Huen Yam, a/k/a Steven Yam, 998 Fashions, Inc. and 103 Fashion Inc.,

Complainant states that in September 2016, he and his family went to Ansonia Morse, LLC, (Ansonia) located at 1550 W. Morse, and submitted an application for a one-bedroom apartment at 1550 W. Morse. Complainant paid the required $50 application fee and Leasing Agent Menchie Maduyag (Maduyag) accepted his application stating that Ansonia’s Manager Estera Cucu would review it. Two days later, Complainant states that submitted the required $300 move-in fee.

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

It has been argued since the start of immigration whether or not aliens (undocumented or documented) should have the same equal rights as Americans when it comes to employment, education, and benefits in the United States. Despite what individuals believe or disbelieve, under certain acts, codes, laws, and the U.S. Constitution, all aliens have rights, regardless of their immigration status. In this paper I will discuss an overview of the court case, Patel v, Quality Inn South, which deals with an undocumented alien who was able to recover funds from his former employer. I will explain the acts that impacted the case, whether I agree or disagree with the outcome of the case, and my personal opinions of the case itself.

Erin Brokovich was presented with a check for $2 million for all her efforts, and continues to work on cases involving peoples who have been victimized by large corporations.

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.