Dawson Quick
Paralegal 1
Memo 1 Interoffice Memorandum
To: Supervising Attorney
From: Dawson Quick
Date: 5/19/18
Case: Morgan v. Morgan
Office File No.: ABC123
Kind of Case: Family
Docket Number: 1
Re: Modification of Order for Child Support
INTRODUCTION/ASSIGNMENT:Denise Morgan has requested that our office represent her in a family court matter addressing the modification of a child support order. The supervising attorney asked that I review the facts of the case and the legal authority provided to determine strengths and weaknesses of Ms. Morgan’s case and if the Motion to Vacate requested by Mr. Morgan will be granted by the court, applying only the law provided, not to include any outside research.
ISSUES:Will David Morgan’s motion to
…show more content…
David did not do so. Nor did he provide a notarized statement explaining why he was unable to appear. Nor a statement from his command officer that his leave is not authorized for the time of appearance. According to the ruling in Walters v Walters-Damon, 9 L.P.T 2d 456 (2009), Income verification and other financial documents could have been provided through affidavits and made available, therefore, did not preclude David from his ability to actively participate in the proceedings. Denise will argue that she has been asking for a modification of child support since 2015, giving sufficient time for David to turn in the proper paper work. She can argue that his repeated refusal to respond to her discovery requests were due to the pay increase and his knowledge of how that would increase his child support payments, as was granted in the temporary orders. Denise’s strength in her argument is that she did withdraw motions several times to accommodate David’s active duty lifestyle and that she allowed these proceedings to go on for two (2) years. In that time David made no effort to take any action on this case. CONCLUSION:Denise has the stronger argument based on the requirements set in place by the Liliput Code for the Armed Forces and the previous case, Walters v. Walters-Damon. David’s only argument is that he wasn’t physically there for the final case. However, he had sufficient time to respond previously. In addition, he could have turned in financial documents without physically appearing. RECCOMONDATIONS:Some further investigation is needed. All financial documents will need to be obtained from David and his wife. Proof of his deployment will also need to be
The conviction of guilty offenders when adhering to the guidelines of the NSW criminal trial process is not difficult based on the presumption of innocence. However, due to features of the criminal trial process, established by the adversarial system of trial, cases can often involve copious amounts of time and money, particularly evident in the case of R vs Rogerson and McNamara where factors such as time and money are demonstrated to be in excess. In addition, characteristics of the adversarial system such as plea bargaining has the power to hinder convictions due to the accused having the authority to hire experienced and expensive lawyers to argue their case, hence maintaining their innocence.
The Bryan v McPherson case is in reference to the use of a Taser gun. Carl Bryan was stopped by Coronado Police Department Officer McPherson for not wearing his seatbelt. Bryan was irate with himself for not putting it back on after being stopped and cited by the California Highway Patrol for speeding just a short time prior to encountering Officer McPherson. Officer McPherson stated that Mr. Bryan was acting irrational, not listening to verbal commands, and exited his vehicle after being told to stay in his vehicle. “Then, without any warning, Officer McPherson shot Bryan with his ModelX26 Taser gun” (Wu, 2010, p. 365). As a result of being shot with a Taser, he fell to the asphalt face first causing severe damage to his teeth and bruising
In a 1973 case, Perin v. Hayne, the District Court System of Iowa addressed the question of whether a cervical fusion performed on a female patient resulted in a paralysis of a vocal chord. (Showalter 160.). In this particular case the plaintiff, Perin, began consulting Dr. Robert A. Hayne for a cervical fusion surgery. Perin underwent the cervical fusion surgery to eliminate the pain, weakness, and numbness in her back, neck, right arm, and hand, which was caused by two protruding cervical disks. Subsequently, Perin alleged she suffered paralysis of a vocal chord because of an injury to the right recurrent laryngeal nerve during the surgery. In a consultation in 1968, Dr. Hayne took on the cervical fusion surgery for the plaintiffs pain, weakness, and numbness in her back, neck, right arm, and hand. The results from this surgery had resolved the plaintiffs injuries. Soon after, the plaintiff admits that even though the surgery resolved her previous
Her little boy wasn't expected to make it through the night, the voice on the line said (“Determined to be heard”). Joshua Deshaney had been hospitalized in a life threatening coma after being brutally beat up by his father, Randy Deshaney. Randy had a history of abuse to his son prior to this event and had been working with the Department of Social Services to keep custody over his son. The court case was filed by Joshua's mother, Melody Deshaney, who was suing the DSS employees on behalf of failing to protect her son from his father. To understand the Deshaney v. Winnebago County Court case and the Supreme courts ruling, it's important to analyze the background, the court's decision, and how this case has impacted our society.
Many people today argue that McCulloch v. Maryland is one of the most important Supreme Court cases in United States history. Three main points were made by Chief Justice Marshall in this case, and all of these points have become critical and necessary parts of the U.S. Government and how it functions. The first part of the Supreme Court’s ruling stated that Congress has implied powers under a specific part of the Constitution referred to as the Necessary and Proper Clause. The second section of the ruling determined that the laws of the United States are more significant and powerful than any state laws that conflict with them. The last element addressed by Chief Justice Marshall was that sovereignty of the Union lies with the people of the
Recommendations: It is recommended that our law office regretfully deny service to Ms. Carry based upon the precedent in Kentucky. Based upon the analysis the issue, it is apparent that Ms. Carry would not receive a promising conclusion to her situation. Due to the facts involved and the cases discussed (which are somewhat on point) Ms. Carry does not make a claim in which relief can be granted.
The following questions need to be answered to further the case pertaining Greene’s v. Jennifer Lawson:
...Streeter 275. Courtesy of the Tarlton Law Library, Jamail Center for Legal Research, The University of Texas at Austin, 2013. Web. 3 February 2014.
Madison County DHR’s testimony revealed that this case opened in February 2008; the custodial parent (CP), Tekisha Triplett, requested paternity and the establishment of an order for child support. At the time, the non-custodial parent (NCP), Nelson Pierce, resided in the State of Missouri. In December 2009, on the behalf of Alabama the State of Missouri issued a child support order.
New York Family Courts’ power to issue special findings orders is widely recognized. The Appellate Division, Second Department, confirmed this Court’s power to make special findings orders when it reversed a Family Court’s denial to issue such an order in an appropriate case. See Trudy-Ann W. v. Joan W., 2010 NY Slip Op 03946 (May 4, 2010); see also In re Antowa McD., 50 A.D.3d 507 (1st Dep’t 2008). Additionally, in 2008, the Chief Administrative Judge of the United Court System of New York issued a memorandum that emphasized the appropriateness of the Family Court to make special findings orders in any proceeding that falls within the jurisdiction of the Family Court. See Memorandum from the Honorable Ann Pfau, Chief Administrative Judge, to Judges and Clerks of the Family Court (October 8, 2008) (“Juveniles may be eligible to apply to federal immigration authorities for SIJS where, in any category of court proceeding, a State court has determined that...
Facts of the case: A California statute made it a criminal offense for a person to "be addicted to the use of narcotics." Lawrence Robinson was convicted under the law, which required a sentence of at least ninety days in jail. After a police officer, who had noticed that Robinson's arms were scabbed, discolored, and filled with needle marks. The officer arrested Robinson, who was sent to the Los Angeles central jail. He was examined by a narcotics division of the police department and proven to have and injection of unsterilized hypodermic needles in his arm.
To begin, we must examine the “best interest of the child” doctrine. Is this doctrine helping or hindering the child custody evaluation process? One important point made by John Mercer (2009) is that this term is not clearly defined and may in fact have different meanings for different children. This points to the idea that child custody evaluations are a very case/individual specific type of evaluation.
Stanley v. Illinois has been applied to an incarcerated woman’s right to raise her own child the same as Stanley did. Although the case occurred years ago, it still applies to all people having the right to raise their children. This however seems contradictory because it is protecting the incarcerated woman’s rights more so than it is protecting the rights of the father who is not incarcerated.
Also the prime suspect had other charges pending against him such as possession of illegal substances and the homeowner of the vacant crime scene said the man was a recovering addict. During the conversation with the officers Johnson refused to give up his DNA sample. The man profess he had not commit any murders and did not commit any crimes regarding the matter. Officers then compel him to give his DNA sample with a warrant compelling him to follow the order. Moreover, after the crime was committed it was discovered that Johnson try to sell one of the victims’ cell phone. He was trying to get rid of the evidence that could implement him on the crime. Witness came forward to verify this story that Johnson indeed try to sell the cell phone for cash. In addition, witness said that Johnson try to be the pimp of the victims that he was
... middle of paper ... ... Gonzaga Law Review 33.3 (1998): 653-668. HeinOnline.com -.