CIVIL LAW- summary judgment; political subdivision immunity; government employee immunity; quasi-judicial immunity; Civ.R. 36(A)(1); discovery compliance; fraud; defamation; tortious interference with business relations; civil conspiracy.
A lawyer who served as a court referee is not entitled to judicial immunity for an assault on a litigant, the California Court of Appeal has ruled. The defendant, a local attorney, was appointed to act as a discovery referee. He repeatedly clashed with the plaintiff's attorney, who filed a motion to remove the defendant from acting as a referee. The defendant responded by shutting the plaintiff and his attorney into a conference room. When the plaintiff tried to leave, the defendant slammed the door against his body, injuring his shoulder and neck.
Was a noise in a courtroom the sound of a wristwatch alarm or a cell phone? In trying to determine this, a judge was accused by four plaintiffs, who were in the courtroom, of illegally detaining them and violating their constitutional rights. In dismissing the plaintiffs' claims in Glavin, et al. v. Restaino, individually, and in his official capacity as a judge in the Niagara Falls City Court, U.S. District Court Judge William Skretny determined that the city court judge was entitled to judicial immunity.
The Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) has been subject to critique, criticism, and judicial challenge since its signing in 1998. While critics list a litany of problems with the MSA, the most prevalent charge is that it permits the settling tobacco companies to act as a state-sanctioned cartel, passing on to consumers the costs of their estimated $206 billion damage payment and using the settlement structure to raise cigarette prices even higher. This Note evaluates Sanders v. Brown, the most recent judicial decision borne from the MSA, and deconstructs the court's analysis. This Note demonstrates the flaws in the judicial reasoning and unveils the ends-driven judicial logic that has perpetuated the MSA for over a decade. This Note concludes that only ends-driven judicial reasoning perp...
§ 20.1. Separation of Powers Checks and Balances. § 20.1.1 Having Some Constitutional Government Structure in Place and Operating. § 20.1.1.1 Ensuring the Continuity of Government. § 20.1.1.2 The 1781 Articles of Confederation and Their Replacement by the 1789 Constitution. § 20.1.1.3 Amending the United States Constitution. § 20.1.2 Issues in the Election of Members of the Federal Government. § 20.1.2.1 Presidential Election. § 20.1.2.2 Congressional Elections. § 20.1.3 Impeachment Power of Congress. § 20.1.4 Immunities from Suit . § 20.1.4.1 Congressional Immunities: The Arrest and Speech or Debate Clauses. § 20.1.4.2 Executive Immunities. A. The President. B. Immunity for Lower Federal Officials. § 20.1.4.3 Judicial Immunity and Congressional Interference with the Courts. § 20.1.4.4 ...
Was a noise in a courtroom the sound of a wristwatch alarm or a cell phone? In trying to determine this, a judge was accused by four plaintiffs, who were in the courtroom, of illegally detaining them and violating their constitutional rights. In dismissing the plaintiffs' claims in Glavin, et al. v. Restaino, individually, and in his official capacity as a judge in the Niagara Falls City Court, U.S. District Court Judge William Skretny determined that the city court judge was entitled to judicial immunity.
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
© Copyright 2012, vLex. All Rights Reserved.
Contents in vLex United States
Explore vLex
For Professionals
For Partners
Company
Other interesting searches:
business trust long run | Real Sa | legislative power of hawaii | MacGregor Golf Company | todd fisch sentence | piazza affari foggia | Derecho al debido proceso | diario oficial 2 mayo 2008 | Gravelotte | Zoonosis
