I have had an opportunity to discuss with my client the possibility of waiving the balance of our lien in exchange for the claimant’s waiver of her rights to additional benefits pursuant to Burns v. Varriale. My client is not interested in any additional waiver of its lien. I am however, authorized to consent to a settlement of the third-party action for a gross amount of $480,000.00 contingent upon the following conditions, that the attorney fee is $157,232.42 and the expenses on the file are $8,255.54. The self-insured employer current Workers’ Compensation lien is $99,290.61 and that the employer, Orange Ulster BOCES, will reimbursed $65,065.14 from the proceeds of the third-party action in full satisfaction of its lien. This represents
Maria had spoken with Eva over the phone concerning the correct total amount of $60,000 for rendering decorating services provided by Eva. Maria had sent a letter of the telephone conversation stating that Eva agreed to take $60,000 in full satisfaction obligation under the contract. Although Eva, changed her mind when depositing the check in the bank, she legally entered a mutual agreement over the telephone where it resulted in a unliquidated debt, payment is lower than actual.
On the 11th of June, 1982 following the conviction of a criminal offense, Robert Johnson was sentenced to two years probation. The terms of his probation included his person, posessions, and residence being searched upon reasonable request. When a search warrant was executed for Johnson’s roommate, officers testified that with enough reasonable suspicion, they were able to search Johnson’s living area as well.
Questions Presented: This is where the legal issues are stated that the party would like for the appellate court to think about and make a final decision (Statsky, pg. 545).
General education high school teacher, Michael Withers, failed to comply with his student’s Individual Education Plan (IEP). D.D. Doe’s IEP required tests to be read orally. Despite knowledge of this IEP and being instructed to follow the IEP by the superintendent, school principal, special education director, and special education teacher, Withers still refused to make the accommodations for D.D.’s handicapping condition. As a result, D.D. failed the history class. His parents filed charges against Withers, arguing that D.D was not afforded the right to a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) promised to all students by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). They also filed a claim for injuctive relief against the Taylor County Board of Education to enforce the laws that protect handicapped students.
Abington v. Schempp was an important case regarding the establishment of religion in American schools. Until the late twentieth century, most children were sent to schools which had some sort of religious instruction in their day. The schools taught the morals, values, and beliefs of Christianity in addition to their everyday curriculum. However, as some people began to drift away from Christianity, parents believed this was not fair to the kids and justifiable by the government. They thought public schools should not be affiliated with religion to ensure the freedom of all of the families who send students there. Such is the situation with the 1963 Supreme Court case Abington v. Schempp.
Stuart v. Nappi was class lawsuit Stuart’s mother filed against school personnel and the Danbury Board of Education because she claimed that her daughter was not receiving the rights granted in the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Kathy Stuart was a student at Danbury High School in Connecticut with serious emotional, behavior, and academic difficulties. She was suppose to be in special education classes, but for some reason she hardly ever attended them. Kathy was involved in a school-wide disturbance. As a result of her complicity in these disturbances, she received a ten-day disciplinary suspension and was scheduled to appear at a disciplinary hearing. The Superintendent of Danbury Schools recommended to the Danbury Board of Education
A recent case decision from the Delaware Court of Chancery, Cigna Health and Life Ins. Co. v. Audax Health Solutions, Inc., called into question the use of special provisions in the letter of transmittal to bind non-signatory shareholders, and the use of a post-closing indemnification provision, contained in a merger agreement, that is not limited in duration or subject to a monetary cap.
Plaintiff now respectfully asks the Court to: (1) award it pre-award interest on the award pursuant to Minn. Stat. §549.09; and (2) award it costs and disbursements pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 549.02 and .04.
In the case of Agee v. Brown, the decedent, Herbert G. Birck died in October 2009 and on November 2009, Roger L. Brown, a personal representative of the Estate of Herbert G. Birck and the trustee of the Herbert G. Birck Revocable Trust, filed a motion to dismiss the Agees’ petition to revoke validation of the last will of Herbert G. Birck.
Ms. Fallsbauer is the one who opened the door for the police officers. (R. at 5.) She refers to the apartment as “my apartment.” (R. at 5.) She believes that the apartment is hers. She signed a consent form for the police officers to be allowed to search the apartment. (R. at 5.) Each of these moments alone was sufficient enough for a reasonable person to believe that Ms. Fallsbauer had actual or apparent authority over the premises. Once all of these factors are put together, however, it presents a much stronger showing that Ms. Fallsbauer had the authority to consent to the search. Any police officer off the street could be walked through the same situation and would reasonably believe that she had the authority to consent to search of the premises. There was no reason for the police officers to ask any further questions of Ms. Fallsbauer.
The plaintiff, Ruffin, originally sued HISD in 2008 for failing to provide adequate educational assistance as outlined in the individualized education plan (IEP) for the child “L.F.” The result of that hearing was in favor of HISD, thus extinguishing the change of placement, private tutoring, and counseling. In this request for a new trial, Ruffin alleges that the hearing officer in the 2008 suit was engaged in a relationship with HISD’s counsel, stating that the relationship somehow influenced the original decision. Ruffin alleges that the IEP in the 2007 school year was insufficient and that the child should have an extended school year (ESY). However, thenr Admission, Review, and Dismissal (ARD) team meeting determined the child would not
In 1985, Christine J. Amos, Judy Bawden, Deniece Kanon, April Joy Reding, Arthur Frank Mason, Ruth Arriola, Shellen Adamson, and Ralph L. Whitaker sued The Corporation of the Presiding Bishopric of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, for discrimination based on religion due to being fired for being unable to or unwilling to qualify for a “temple recommend”, in Utah District Court and “won”. By “won” it is meant the court decided, based on the three prong test[1] set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman, that § 702 of Title VII of The Civil Rights act of 1964 was unconstitutional when applied to non-religious duties within a non profit business owned by a religious organization, or an organization which heavily relied on funding from a religious corporation.
During the purchase Green Tree Financial Corp mandate to buy Vendor's Single Interest insurance. It also mandated any legal situation under case law or statutory law, has to be resolved by binding arbitrator. Randolph sued Green Tree Financial Corp didn’t disclose hidden fess in terms of the finance charge the Vendor's Single Interest insurance will charge.
In Milwaukee County Case No. 14-CF-4197 The State charged Mr. Boyd in a criminal complaint with one count of Possession with Intent to Deliver
... middle of paper ... ... Gonzaga Law Review 33.3 (1998): 653-668. HeinOnline.com -.