My Observation Of A Civil Case I Had To Do With Divorce

Case 1 is an appeal to the conviction rendered by District Court Judge Bradley on

Procedural History: Plaintiff filed for divorce on January 2013 and sue for custody or visitation right to the child in Supreme Court, Suffolk County. The Supreme Court determined without a hearing that the plaintiff lack standing because she was not the biological or adoptive parent of the child and gave sole custody to the defendant. The Plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Division.

What did the trial court do? Who won and lost? What did the trial court say?

Me: “On the plaintiff side, Sandra and all of her kids deposed. Dr. DeVere White’s lawyer is the one who questions them under oath. His name is Mr. Tom Minder. On the defendant side, Dr.DeVere White is the only one who deposed. He was questioned by Mr. Kelly.”

As stated in the government’s motion, since the victim was very uncooperative, Mr. Bates served as a willing witness who would testify against Mr. Coleman. Therefore, without Mr. Bates’ timely assistance, cooperation, and willingness to testify, the government would not have been able to successfully prosecute Mr. Coleman, who ultimately entered a guilty plea before this Court.

2008 1L Moot Court Tournament at the Liberty University School of Law, White V. Gibbs CA# -8776-CV285.

Brown’s appellant counsel, Chris Anderson, felt that this lack of objection to the prosecutions claim made his sentencing more severe than warranted. The court asked if he had any cases to back up a claim of prejudicial ineffective assistance of trial counsel and the only case that Mr. Anderson could think of was Nixon V. Singletary, which was actually overturned by the supreme court of which the justice’s informed appellant counsel. Mr. Anderson then went on to defend his position saying that the prosecution added 3 lines to a one-line quote that aided in the belief of premeditation. Mr. Browns counsel then describes the events that occurred and attempts to disprove the idea of premeditation while the Justices argue that there’s hardly any merit to the claim that there wasn’t premeditation. They discussed the requirements for premeditation and cited the opinion based on case law. Mr. Anderson seemed to struggle maintaining his viewpoint about premeditation. Mr. Anderson claimed that the decision by Mr. brown was sporadic and thus not premediated. Christina Pacheco, the counsel on behalf of the attorney general, then began to argue the state’s case against this

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

A court battle is erupting over the fate of a 3-year old named Braelynn. Her adopted family claims that she is theirs since they legal adopted her when her biological mother gave away all here parental rights. However, the father was incarcerated at this time and did not have a say in the ordeal. But now that he is out, he wants his daughter back since his parental rights should have never been terminated due to his incarceration. The Dalsings had adopted her from three weeks old and Braelynn has never met her biological dad. Yet a judge agreed with the biological father’s argument and vacated the adoption. Braelynn is still living with the couple but have requested a re-hearing at the state court of appeals.

I went to the court on October 13, around 10:30. When I first walked in there were a lot of people there I wasn’t expecting that at all. Security was higher than at the magistrate court. There were attorneys there but they stand next to there defendants at all times since it was still assembly justice so the trials didn’t go on for days if the most for about 30 minutes. The first case I had a chance was already on its way so I don’t know how long it had been going on for. The defendant was wearing a dark blue jump suit. As well as he had some chains aournd his waist

With such short notice there was something that was vital to him “winning” this hearing, it was the criminal paralegal a couple of offices over. If it were not for her meticulousness then the hearing would have been a disaster. I interviewed a couple of the paralegals at the Summit Law Firm and one of them was Ana Lopez, the Criminal Case Manager, during the interview she emphasized the attention to detail that is needed to be a great paralegal. Depending on where and in what field of the law one works in the number of cases that one handles can vary drastically. At the Summit Law Firm the number of caseload is growing and with that comes the chance that something falls in between the cracks.

I attended the District Court at 201 West Picacho Ave on March 7, 2011. I sat in on judge Mike Murphy's court. Judge Murphy started court promptly at 9:00 a.m. but before I got into the court I had to wait in a long line of about 30 people. then when I finally got to the court house door I had to go through a metal detector where I had to take off my belt and shoes and everything metal on my persons. Then I asked one of the officers working the metal dictator how I could ask to sit in on a criminal court that was going on this morning. She then directed me to court room four. I asked the bailiff if it was ok for me to sit in on court today for my criminal justice class, and if the case where criminal matters. The bailiff then told me that

On Monday February 8, 2016, I was assigned to Judge El Amin’s courtroom (courtroom 5). At approximately 0945 hours, my assistance was no longer needed in courtroom 5. Therefore, at approximately 1000 hours, I entered Judge Crawford’s courtroom (courtroom 6) in order to assist with the transporting of juveniles to and from the holding cells, etc.

The first case that was presented involved a man that was currently incarcerated in the Vanderburgh County jail. The inmate was able to plead his case, telling the judge that he was not able to work because he was injured, and therefore had no income to pay for child support. After looking at the past payments the inmate made through the court, it revealed that before he was incarcerated he had made one payment to the child’s mother. He claimed that he was out of work because he had broken his leg, but failed to provide an statements from his employer stating he was either let go or not able to work because of an injury. All payments had stopped for whatever reason. The judge found the inmate in contempt of court for failure to obey a court order. He could not prove to the judge that he deliberately disobey the court’s order to pay child support. In the end, the judge found him irresponsible and sentenced him to 90 days in jail along with a $1000 fine. After he was sentenced, he was escorted out of the front of the courtroom by the bailiff.

Justice is essential in city court ruling, and it is the mandate of the judge to