Divorce Complaint Divorce Complaint BY: Veronica Decker December 6‚ 2013 PA250: Family Law Professor‚ Jessica Gauvin Commonwealth of Massachusetts The Trial Court Hampshire Division Probate and Family Court Department Docket No. 88888 Complaint for Divorce Patty Bean ‚ Plaintiff v. David Bean ‚ Defendant 1. Plaintiff‚ who resides at 123 West Golf Road‚ Boston‚ MA. 12345 was lawfully married to the Defendant who now resides at 456 East Lark Street‚
Premium Marriage Law Judgment
PA110 Civil Lit Legal Services | | 4321 First View Drive‚ Kansas City‚ Missouri 64147 | | March 30‚ 2012 Whitney Enright PA110 Civil Lit Legal Services 4321 First View Drive‚ Kansas City‚ Missouri 64147 (323)545-7676 Justin King 123 Main Street‚ Kansas City‚ Missouri Representation of Justin King Dear Mr. King‚ Thank you for meeting with me at our law firm. I look forward to helping you in this case. I believe that we have a strong case and with your cooperation we can continue
Premium United States Law Lawyer
Specht v. Netscape Communication Corporation‚ 306 F.3d 17 (2nd Cir. 2002). I. FACTS Plaintiffs sued‚ Netscape‚ a software internet company who distributed the free software SmartDownload‚ for electronic eavesdropping. The Plaintiffs alleged Defendant violated two federal statutes‚ the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act‚ by capturing private information about files downloaded from the Internet . Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendant in District Court
Premium Law Civil procedure Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Johnson Bank v. George Korbakes & Co.‚ LLP Commercial Law 03/17/2013 Facts of the case Brandon Apparel Group‚ Inc. (“Brandon”) was involved in the business of manufacturing and sales of casual apparel as well as licensed other companies to manufacture‚ distribute and sell its clothing lines. Additionally‚ Brandon had licensing agreements with several colleges‚ universities‚ and sports organizations‚ such as the National Football League. In 1997 Brandon borrowed funds from Johnson
Premium Civil procedure Finance Plaintiff
In Lang v James Morrison & Co Ltd (1912) 13 CLR 1‚ an action was brought by an English company‚ James Morrison & Co Ltd‚ against three defendants‚ J McFarland‚ T Lang and W Keates. The plaintiffs carried on the business of receiving and disposing of frozen meat from abroad. They alleged that the three defendants carried on business in Melbourne as partners under the names ‘T McFarland & Co’ and on occasions ‘McFarland‚ Lang and Keates’. Before the action commenced‚ J McFarland and W Keates became
Premium Plaintiff Complaint Pleading
Chapter 2 The Court System N.B.: TYPE indicates that a question is new‚ modified‚ or unchanged‚ as follows. N A question new to this edition of the Test Bank. + A question modified from the previous edition of the Test Bank. = A question included in the previous edition of the Test Bank. TRUE/FALSE QUESTIONS 1. Laws would be meaningless without the courts to interpret and apply them. ANSWER: T PAGES: Section 1 TYPE: + BUSPROG: Analytic AICPA: BB-Legal 2. The federal courts are superior
Premium Trial court Appeal Civil procedure
Warfield v. Hicks‚ 91 N.C.App. 1‚ 4‚ 8‚ 370 S.E.2d 689‚ 691‚ 693 (1988). Finally‚ the Court found dismissal of a fraud claim was appropriate because the following statements were not sufficiently specific: Plaintiff complains that Defendant Popp falsely represented “the potential for sales from Popp’s Charlotte office‚” “the quality of yarn produced by Clemson‚” and “the availability of customers for Clemson Yarn.” Each of these categories‚ however‚ necessarily implies a statement of opinion‚ including
Premium Law Jury Appeal
Question 7 In this question‚ it sets out the following issues in relation to the rescuers and the psychiatric illness caused by the accident‚ including i) whether Samantha and Eric‚ as rescuers and primary victims‚ would be entitled to damages caused by the accident; ii) whether Susan‚ as a secondary victim‚ would satisfied the requirements in order to claim the damages; iii) whether Julie‚ as a primary victim‚ would be entitled to damages caused by the accident. i) whether Samantha and Eric
Premium Tort law Tort Law
Legal Memorandum on Rogers v. Wycoff case From: Jamshid AKHMEDOV To: Therese KEELAGHAN Date: November 5‚ 2012 1) Relevant facts: Defendant: Edward Wycoff‚ 40 Defense attorney: Defendant acts as his own attorney Victims: Julie Rogers‚ 47 and Paul Rogers‚ 47 Plaintiff attorney: Deputy District Attorney Mark Peterson Witness (also a Victim): Victims’ son Eric Rogers‚ 20 Witness’ attorney: Tedd W. Cassman Judge: Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge John W
Premium United States Jury Civil procedure
residents of Middletown‚ NY need root canals or any other restorative or general dentistry procedures‚ they call the father-daughter dental practice Gunther B Goldsmith‚ DDS and Ellen J Solomon‚ DMD. The skilled dentists at this Middletown-based practice often perform root canals on their patients‚ so they know that there are several indicators that you might need this type of restorative dentistry procedure. Here Dr. Goldsmith and
Premium Dentistry Oral hygiene Dental caries