Plaintiff Essays

In the case of Tomcik vs. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections, Janet Tomcik, the plaintiff, blamed the loss of her right breast on the fact that there was a major delay in her examination and treatment of her tumor. This could be known as nonfeasance negligence, which is the “failure to act when there is a duty to act,” (Pozgar, 2016). The corrections department, or in this case, the defendant, claimed that Tomcik`s cancer was already so developed, that her breast would have been removed

ohn Rylands vs. Thomas Fletcher The case of John Rylands vs. Thomas Fletcher took place in the early 1860’s starting from 1860 to 1868. In this case, the plaintiff (Fletcher) owns a land of mines. The defendant (Rylands) is the owner of a mill in the same neighborhood who made a reservoir store water to be used for the mill. The plaintiff (Fletcher) sued the defendant ( Rylands) for the damages caused which is the water from the defendants reservoir overflowing onto the plaintiff’s land causing

Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) generally requires a prisoner Plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court. Title 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under § 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” See also Moore v. Bennette, 517 F.3d 717, 725 (4th

1. I am an attorney with the law firm of ALAN RIPKA & ASSOCIATES, LLP, the attorneys for Plaintiff Lurline McKenzie Moses herein and as such I am fully familiar with the proceedings and pleadings herein. 2. I make this affirmation in further support of Plaintiff’s cross motion to preclude Defendant’s IME. As Defendant’s original motion for summary judgment is fully briefed, the undersigned will offer no further comment on the merits of that motion herein. 3. In their opposition, Defendant Medic

Plaintiff, Martin Lewis, brought action against defendants, Heartland Food Corporation, Burger King Corporation (BKC), and its franchisor, Burger King No. 1250 in circuit court, seeking compensatory and punitive damages arising from the theft of his iPhone. BKC filed a motion to strike plaintiffs prayer for punitive damages, which was granted by the trial court. The trial court also entered an order dismissing Burger King No. 1250 as a defendant. BKC, and Heartland Food Corporation each filed a motion

FIRST COUNT AND CAUSE OF ACTION DEFENDANT GERARD WARRENS, INDIVIDUALLY, CONDUCTED AN UNREGISTERED SECURITIES OFFERING IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL AND ARIZONA SECURITIES LAW THROUGH FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION 64. Plaintiff, STEVEN HOOPER, repeats, realleges and reiterates each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs “1” though “63” of the Complaint. 65. Defendant GERARD WARRENS is the sole manager, officer, and director of STEALTH SOFTWARE, LLC. GERARD WARRENS ("WARRENS") resides in Cave Creek

Sides: Wilson (Plaintiff) v Bauer Media Pty Ltd (Defendant) The Plaintiff, in this case, was Rebel Wilson and the defendant of the case was Bauer Media Pty Ltd Key Facts; Wilson V Bauer Media Pty Ltd was a defamation case between famous actor Rebel Wilson and media group Bauer Media. Wilson alleged Bauer Media published defamatory articles with baseless or misleading information creating a negative narrative regarding Rebel as an individual and actor. Bauer Media owns multiple media outlets

Plaintiff's respectfully request from this court an extension of time to file Plaintiff's Opening Brief for their case for the following reasons; Plaintiff's are at present time not represented by council and are preceding with Appeal Pro Se and due to the seriousness of any outcome in our case and the complex law and new laws regarding our case Plaintiff's need additional time to review relevant law and consult with appropriate people, persons regarding their case. Some of the complex and extensive

Neyman v. Doshi Diagnostic Imaging Services presents a case between the plaintiff, the spouse of a deceased breast cancer patient, and her treating physician, Dr. Leonid Sorkin, and Doshi Diagnostic Imaging Services. The plaintiff’s counsel argues that Dr. Sorkin deviated from the standard of care and therefore delayed the patient’s diagnosis and treatment which affected her prognosis (Neyman v. Doshi, 2017). The plaintiff’s position against Doshi Diagnostic was that the radiologist should have suggested

Parties: Ted Chimel (Plaintiff) v. The State of California (Defendant) Facts: The Police Officers arrived at the Plaintiff’s house with an arrest warrant for the alleged crime he had committed. The Plaintiff was not at home and his spouse let them in until Chimel return. Upon the Plaintiff entering the house, the police arrested him and request permission to search the house. The Plaintiff denied the request to search the house, but the police officers proceeded to search the house.

STATE DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SALLY SELLER, Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant, v. BILLY BUYER Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff. 17-cv-1234 NOTICE OF MOTION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon the annexed Affidavit of Billy Buyer, and Exhibit (A) annexed hereto, the accompanying Memorandum of Law, and all prior papers and proceedings herein, request that this Court dismiss Plaintiff Breach of contract claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

partial summary judgment as to Plaintiffs’ express and implied warranty claims. Defendants claim Plaintiffs have failed to prove contractual privity, as required by California law to claim breach of warranty, and, as to Plaintiffs’ claim for breach of implied warranty of fitness, DePuy argues that Plaintiffs cannot show the specific purpose for which Plaintiffs would use the Pinnacle metal-on-mental (“MoM”) hip system. Defendants arguments are without merit – Plaintiffs’ evidence shows that DePuy’s

“To prove the causation element, the injured plaintiff must show a direct relationship between the alleged misconduct and the injury sustained from the misconduct.” (Morissette, 2014) Tammy Cleveland can show a legally sufficient relationship between the breach of duty and the injury that is is referred

brought by the plaintiff, Mr. Jim Jones, who alleges that the Defendants, Grab-n-Go, Inc. (“the store”) and by proxy, its owner, Mr. John Smith, did negligently leave some amount of coffee creamer on the floor near the coffee bar, which he stepped on, slipped and fell, but for causing the injuries he sustained that day. The defendants, through their attorneys, move to DISMISS the counts brought against them pursuant to Md. Rules 2-322(b)(2), Failure to State a Claim. The plaintiff, Mr. Jones, alleges

2. Predicate Acts The De Sole and Howard Plaintiffs have alleged predicate acts of mail and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343. In addition, Howard alleges false labeling of visual art, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2318, as a predicate act. Hammer argues, however, that Plaintiffs have not alleged that Hammer committed a predicate act and, in particular, have not alleged that "Hammer used the mail or the wires for the purpose of executing the alleged scheme." (Hammer Br. (De Sole

reported for work Issues 1. Does the plaintiff have the right to sue the bank for wrongful death or for the violation of the invasion of privacy. 2. Does the bank leave the liable on the Herman friend at the bank. Applicable In the case of Mayer v. Hampton, 127 N.H. 81 the court affirm both

In the case of Harris v. CSX a railroad worker by the name of Ronald K. Harris filed against his employer, CSX Transportation Inc., under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act and the Locomotive Inspection Act. Mr. Harris suffered from cancer, specifically multiple myeloma, which he believed was caused by his exposure to diesel exhaust fumes in his line of work. Unfortunately, after filing and while the case was pending, Mr. Harris succumbed to his cancer and legal proceedings against CSX Transportation

Limon’s mother retained Plaintiff to pursue a tort claim on behalf of Mr. Limon and her (collectively, the “Clients”) against the allegedly negligent driver. The negligent driver had an automobile liability policy issued through defendant Geico. Plaintiff alleges that its attorney’s fee contract with the Clients granted it a one-third contingency fee in “all monies collected” as a result of the lawsuit against the negligent driver. (Petition, ¶¶ 5.2, 5.3) 4. Plaintiff alleges that it notified

SAMUEL S. HAINES v. HENRY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION (This is our superintendent today) Imagine seeing you and your kids being struck by a bus that could’ve killed you. Mr. Samuel S. Haines had this happen to him. He was the victim,also the plaintiff whenever he called suites on this accidents. The case was held at the Tennessee State Court. In the Tennessee State Court website, the text states, “It is the mission of the State Court of Henry County to do justice, as nearly as possible, to all persons

This office represents Plaintiff, Eric Avogardo, in the above-captioned case. Please accept this letter-brief in lieu of a more formal reply and opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order pending for April 28, 2017 for the deposition and materials of Nancy Holden, Senior Claims Examiner of Lancer Insurance Company. The New Jersey Supreme Court Rules governing discovery in civil cases are designed to eliminate as far as possible concealment and surprise at trial, so that cases are decided