The Case Lawsuit Filed Suit

Plaintiffs have moved to dismiss their action against the Defendants under K.S.A 60-241(b). Defendants have opposed this motion because they feel it would be unfair to them because 1) it would not settle the issues in the case, 2) it would deny the Defendants further discovery, and 3) it represents only a partial dismissal of the case because the Court would maintain the protective order. This memo is divided in two main parts. The first part discusses both dismissals without and with prejudice and considers the advantages and disadvantages of both. To choose, which to go with the main question will be balancing the risk of the Court imposing expenses as a condition of dismissal vs. the State foreclosing its ability to re-file

We called the bursar's office to discuss the matter and were referred to T R Daley, the financial aid director but she referred me to Sam Wong who referred me to the director of the bursar's office, Tony Carson. After reviewing the facts of the case, Mr. Carson lifted the hold on my son's account but told me he did not have the jurisdiction to waive the charges. He said he would refer the facts to Ms. Daley and organize a conference call with her and me but soon after he stopped answering my calls. Instead, I spoke to Sam Wong who referred me back to Ms. Daley who then referred me back to Mr. Carson's office. So I was forced to contact Ms. Daley again and finally a conference call was set up. However, during the conference call, instead of resolving the situation at hand, Ms. Daley chose to question my son as if to criminalize him about the refund disbursed to him and then abruptly exited the conference shortly thereafter. There was absolutely zero responsibility taken for the mistake that had occurred. Mr. Carson then referred the case to the ombudsman who also provided no solution.

Reviewing the dispositions, the court denies plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment on both its first and second causes of action….

Seven years later, the Supreme Court, in Ewing, revisited the question of whether a university student has a property interest in his education. In Ewing, the University of Michigan dismissed a student for failing an

In mid-1999, a student by the name of B.J. Durham transferred schools as a result of his mother’s divorce and financial struggles. B.J. was a cross-country/track star at his previous school, Park Tudor Private High School, and was rumored to be moving for athletically-motivated reasons. Because of the hearsay, B.J. was not granted full-eligibility by the IHSAA but partial. B.J., the plaintiff in this case, was also denied access to the Hardship Exception which would’ve granted him athletic eligibility in full. B.J. and his family took their case to court. The court issued a permanent injunction against the IHSAA’s decision, to which the IHSAA later appealed. The court stood on their decision,

Furthermore, Ewing stated that the University failed to uphold his contract as an enrolled student and had been “barred by the doctrine of promissory estoppel” (Regents of the University of Michigan v. Ewing. (2016). Additionally, he asserted that according to federal law, he had a property interest in his continued enrollment in the medical program known as Inteflex, and therefore,

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

I have no records of ever receiving any refund for books or materials for the semester I attended at IADT, during my enrollment from any of these loans. All funds received in my name from these loans the school kept and never disbursed them to me for purchase of books or any other materials needs for the courses I attended. I have included documentaions for review along with including the credit collection dispute that I won and the day it was removed from my credit report due to these inconsistencies.

The LSUC has violated an important Charter right by refusing to credit law graduates from TWU because it emphasizes certain Christian values. Volkenant, is a TWU alumnus and after obtaining his Bachelor Degree at TWU he wanted to study law at TWU’s law school so he could continue to learn in an environment where his Christian beliefs were respected. He was unable to attend TWU’s law school and has since started law school at the University of Alberta. TWU argued that the LSUC had no right to discredit its law school since it has followed all the necessary steps to establish a credible law school; this included making sure that the school’s Covenant did not create any major issues with the public.

Introducing Folashade V. John, I am a first- generation student with parents who were both born in foreign countries—Trinidad and Nigeria. It is my duty, as a first generation American to become successful. As a third- year student at the University of Florida, I have realized that it is more beneficial to utilize your resources than to complain about not having enough. There are many resources on campus that benefit students like me. The GatorLaw Program will provide me with great opportunities that can help me pursue my interest in legal studies.

Danle should disclose the class-action litigation. The case states “Danle’s external counsel relating to the two lawsuits that led counsel to believe that Danle could potentially, but not probably, but liable for a percentage of recovery sought by the claimants in those matters”. If it is reasonably possible then Danle would be required to disclose according to the AICPA standards. The only possible way to avoid disclosing the litigation is if and only if it was a remote chance that they would have the judge rule against them, otherwise it needs to be disclosed. Also while Danle doesn’t have an exact percentage of the amount they could pay out, they do have a maximum amount that can potentially be paid out at 50% of the original judgement.

denied her entrance based on race. She was willing to postpone her career and take the matter to court. The District Court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma did not grant Sipuel admission to the university. She took the matter to the Supreme Court with Thurgood Marshal representing her. They received a ruling in favor of her admittance to the university.

I would like to register for Fall. Although I am still working with Student Accounts on a resolution, the balance has been satisfied. And my unofficial transcript states that I am in good standing. However, I am still unable to register for Fall, because of a hold. I cannot determine the nature of the hold at this time however according to my Things To Do area; I am still on academic probation.

The underlying issue that is being presented is that of the voluntary Tuition Insurance that is automatically added to student’s billings accounts at the start of every new semester. Documentation shows that that first mention of Spring Tuition Insurance occurred at the time when the Spring 2017 Bill was issued, November 18th, 2016 as an ‘important note’ footnote. This note mentions that waivers should be submitted by the billing date, and the at the final deadline is midnight on January 16th, 2017. Following the initial email, an email on December 13th, 2016 notes that a remainder balance was on my account. This is when the payment plan was set up to cover the tuition charges for the semester and not the addition of the Tuition Insurance amount. No further emails were sent in regards to remainder balances on my account, because of not including the insurance fee before the January 16th midnight deadline. Spring 2017 semester started January 17th. Confirmation of Tuition Refund Insurance was not sent until the 7th of February. The charged was questioned on the day after, saying that there was nothing that could be done.