Case Study: Lin Vs. Hutch Realty Partners LLC

The Plaintiff, Keller, sued the defendant, DeLong. DeLong was driving Kellers car at Tyngsboro, Massachusetts at approximately 11:40p.m. on April 14, 1963, DeLong collided with a utility pole at the side of the highway. The Trial Court ruled that the sole cause of the accident was the fact that the defendant dozed off to sleep and did not awaken in time to avoid collision with the pole. The driver showed no sign he was going to fall asleep. Defendant, Carl DeLong, suddenly and unexpectedly dozed at the time of the occurrence of the accident. Defendant, DeLong, was not found negligent. Vacated; reversed, affirming trial court’s judgment.

Case Study of case 69 A.D.3d 413: Yun Tung Chow vs. Reckitt & Colman, Inc.

3. As a proximate result of Brad's wrongful and unlawful conduct, Richard suffered physical and emotional injuries worth the sum of $200,000.

Cross-Complainants are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Cross-Defendants had no intention of completing the reconstruction improvements within the amount approved by the Bolanos’ insurance company. With the Home Improvement Contract, Cross-Defendants submitted an estimate for $275,718.08. When the Bolanos’ insurance company only approved repairs for 251,569.81, Pedro Luis Hidalgo made representations that all insurance companies approve less but that Cross-Defendants know how to obtain the difference between the requested and approved amounts.

In Winnipeg Condominium versus Bird Construction, the tort law focused on negligence. As Justice La Forest indicated, the construction of the building resulted in a defect which presented a potential for physical damage and a possible danger to the public. While there was no mention of any involvement of an engineer as a defendant in the case, if the actions of an engineer would have been in question, then that engineer could also have been named as a defendant. However, the negligence tort was being directed primarily at the general contractor in this case.

This particular scenario is cumulative but still has two issues that must be dealt with separately. The first is psychiatric injury suffered by the claimant . Also, it must be established whether Bricks R Us can apply negligent contribution as their defence against Ronnie's claims. The final issue concerns the stabbing and if Ronnie was rightfully imprisoned.

The definition of exceeds authorized access provided in the CFAA does not suggest it applies to misuse, “[b]y its plain terms, this definition also speaks to access, not use.” JCBHoldings NY, LLC v. Pakter, 931 F. Supp.2d 514, 523 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). The Ninth Circuit fittingly adopted a narrow interpretation of the CFAA in Nosal. 676 F.3d at 863. There, the defendant (Nosal) resigned from his job and convinced some of his former colleagues to give him confidential information using their authorized access to help him start his own competing business. Id. at 856. Company policy forbade disclosure of confidential information. Id. The district court dismissed the claim, reasoning “[t]here is simply no way to read [the definition of ‘exceeds authorized access’] to incorporate corporate policies governing use of information unless the word alter is interpreted to mean misappropriate,” as “[s]uch an interpretation would defy the plain meaning of the word alter, as well as common sense.” Id.

The central issue in the mock trial was whether the payment of life insurance from Prime Global Insurance group to Raven Temple, the wife of the late Aubrey Temple, was warranted. Aubrey Temple purchased a life insurance plan from Prime Global Insurance on March 16th, 2011. Prime Global Insurance’s policy is illustrated clearly in their terms and conditions that the one-million dollar payout to the policy holder’s beneficiary on the condition that the death of the individual must not have occurred by suicide within two years of enacting the contract. My contribution to jury deliberations were to synthesize the evidence to most accurately depict the events that passed, and to come to a conclusion whether Mr. Temple died by suicide or accidental death, and if his death occurred before the two-year time period as outlined in the insurance company’s policy. The prosecution and defense painted a story for the jury and called on witnesses including Ms. Temple ¬– the wife of the late Mr. Temple, Mr. Usher – former business partner of Mr. Temple, the transcript of a sworn testimony by the medical examiner of Mr. Temple, a detective who arrived at the scene, the limo driver who was driving Mr. Temple from that night’s Veteran Ball, and an individual who was driving behind the limo before Mr. Temple was ejected out of the vehicle.

Bailey helped a restaurant that had been open less than seven months when a large settlement. The settlement was the largest ever awarded

Plaintiff further asserts that the Defendant breached its duty of care to her by: (1) “failing to fix a hazardous condition within a reasonable time;” (2) “failing to adequately warn plaintiff of a hazardous condition;” and (3) “otherwise failing to exercise reasonable and due care under the circumstances.” The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in the amount of two hundred thousand dollars, plus interest and costs.

Conclusion: Thanks to the landmark case, Marrita Murphy and Daniel J. Leveille, Appellants v. Internal Revenue Service and United States of America, Appellees, there is now no misunderstanding that awards received for damages to personal and professional reputation and mental suffering are included in gross income and are therefore taxable under 26 U.S.C. § 104(a)(2). This determines that because Murray did not suffer personal physical injuries and since gross income as defined by Code Sec. 61 includes compensatory damages for nonphysical injuries, such as those awarded to Murray, his award is in fact taxable [2007-2 U.S.T.C. ¶50,531, (Jul. 3, 2007)].

* Research for similar cases with the same injury but with settlements far greater than $100,000. The bigger its difference from the client’s demands, the better it would be. Present these case citations to the court and by the principle of perceptual contrast, it will drive home the point to the jury that the plaintiff’s demand is indeed very

Most felt there is a “Low Risk” of foundation damage to every home in Houston and the surrounding areas, and there is likely no such thing as “No Risk.” A voir dire question can be authored on this concept to identify potentially dangerous jurors. This theme will especially resonate with jurors having family and friends living throughout the Gulf Coast area, as they will be well aware that street, sidewalk and driveway cracks are not unique to the plaintiff’s

Donna Driver unintentionally ran a red light, and caused a car accident with Vic Victim. Vic sustained severe injuries. Donna’s auto insurance policy with Gekko has liability coverage limit of $100,000.00. Vic’s medical bills alone run close to that, and there’s also his loss of work and pain & suffering to be taken into account. Vic wants to settle the entire case for $100,000.00, and Donna pleads with Gekko to do so since it is obvious that he could recover more than that based on the facts of this case. Gekko tells her that they will only offer $50,000.00, and if it’s not accepted, they will take their chances at trial.

During the past two years, the number of lawsuits against recreation and entertainment business venues has steadily risen. In today's struggling economy, even the smallest incident can result in a lawsuit. As more people lose their jobs and medical insurance benefits, they will turn to litigation to recover the costs for injuries that may or may not have been the result of the venue's negligence. For most recreational operations such as indoor climbing gyms, sports centers and guides programs, the most utilized and required risk management tool in the insurance industry is the waiver release and assumption of risk form that must be signed by the participant.