Strickland v. Washington (1984) Nix v. Whiteside (1986) Lockhart v. Fretwell (1993) Williams v. Taylor (2000) Glover v. United States (2001) Bell v. Cone (2002) Woodford v. Visciotti (2002) Wiggins v. Smith (2003) Holland v. Jackson (2004) Wright v. Van Patten (2008) Bobby v. Van Hook (2009) Wong v. Belmontes (2009) Porter v. McCollum (2009) Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) Sears v. Upton (2010) Premo v. Moore (2011) Lafler v. Cooper (2012) Buck v. Davis (2017)
It is likewise important that the "plaintiff selects the proper venue with the proper jurisdiction to bring his lawsuit." The clerk of a court signs or stamps the court seal upon a summons or citation, which is then served by the plaintiff upon the defendant, together with a copy of the complaint. This service notifies the defendants that they are being sued and that they are limited in the amount of time of a reply. The service provides a copy of the complaint in order to notify the defendants of the nature of the claims. Once the defendants are served with the summons and complaint, they are subject to a time limit to file an answer stating their defenses to the plaintiff's claims, which includes any challenges to the court's jurisdiction, and any counterclaims they wish to assert against the plaintiff.
Chicago, IL On March 31, participants in the Boeing Voluntary Investment Plan (VIP Plan) filed a class action ERISA lawsuit in the Northern District of Illinois. The lawsuit alleges that Boeing knew about problems with its 737 MAX series of airplanes and hid the bad news, all while encouraging plan participants to invest in company stock though the VIP Stock Fund. When the planes dove out of the sky, the stock price dropped, too. Although it hardly compares to the terrible and tragic loss of life, plan participants were also injured when their retirement savings vanished.

There are numerous motions that either party can file throughout the lawsuit to terminate it "prematurely"—before submission to the judge or jury for final consideration. These motions attempt to persuade the judge, through legal argument and sometimes accompanying evidence, that there is no reasonable way that the other party could legally win and therefore there is no sense in continuing with the trial. Motions for summary judgment, for example, can usually be brought before, after, or during the actual presentation of the case. Motions can also be brought after the close of a trial to undo a jury verdict contrary to law or against the weight of the evidence, or to convince the judge to change the decision or grant a new trial.


The information herein was obtained from various sources. We do not guarantee its accuracy. Neither the information, recommendations or opinions expressed herein constitutes an offer to buy or sell any securities, futures, options or investment products. Merrill Lynch may trade for its own account in the securities or other products described here.
noun action, action at law, case, case for deeision, cause in court, claim, contention, contest, controversy, controversy before a court, court accion, dispute, judicial contest, legal action, legal argument, legal contest, legal controversy, legal dispute, legal prooeedings, lis, litigation, matter for judgment, proceeding, suit at law, suit in equity, trial
After conducting an empirical study of pro se felony defendants, I conclude that these defendants are not necessarily either ill-served by the decision to represent themselves or mentally ill. ... In state court, pro se defendants charged with felonies fared as well as, and arguably significantly better than, their represented counterparts ... of the 234 pro se defendants for whom an outcome was provided, just under 50 percent of them were convicted on any charge. ... for represented state court defendants, by contrast, a total of 75 percent were convicted of some charge. ... Only 26 percent of the pro se defendants ended up with felony convictions, while 63 percent of their represented counterparts were convicted of felonies ... in federal court ... the acquittal rate for pro se defendants is virtually identical to the acquittal rate for represented defendants.[39]
The information on this site is provided "AS IS". Merrill Lynch does not warrant the accuracy of the materials provided herein, either expressly or implied, for any particular purpose and expressly disclaims any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. Merrill Lynch will not be responsible for any loss or damage that could result from interception by third parties of any information made available to you via this site. Although the information provided to you on this site is obtained or compiled from sources we believe to be reliable, Merrill Lynch cannot and does not guarantee the accuracy, validity, timeliness or completeness of any information or data made available to you for any particular purpose. Neither Merrill Lynch, nor any of its affiliates, directors, officers or employees, nor any third-party vendor will be liable or have any responsibility of any kind for any loss or damage that you incur in the event of any failure or interruption of this site, or resulting from the act or omission of any other party involved in making this site or the data contained therein available to you, or from any other cause relating to your access to, inability to access, or use of the site or these materials, whether or not the circumstances giving rise to such cause may have been within the control of Merrill Lynch or of any vendor providing software or services support. In no event will Merrill Lynch, its affiliates or any such parties be liable to you for any direct, special, indirect, consequential, incidental damages or any other damages of any kind even if Merrill Lynch or any other party have been advised of the possibility thereof. 
Authority is the information used to convince a court how to apply the law to the facts of a case. Legal authority is divided into two classes -- primary and secondary. There are two sources of primary authority: (1) constitutions, codes, statutes, and ordinances; and (2) court decisions, preferably from the same jurisdiction where the case is filed. Secondary authority, which is not cited except in certain circumstances, is found in legal encyclopedias, legal texts, treatises, law review articles, and court cases in other jurisdictions.

Though arbitration proceedings are generally less formal than trials, most of the principles ­described in this book also apply to arbitration. As in a trial, you and your adversary present evidence to the arbitrator through your own testimony and the testimony of witnesses. Like a judge, an arbitrator evaluates the credibility and legal significance of evidence to decide whether you win or lose the case.


Application of standard information retrieval techniques to legal text can be more difficult than application in other subjects. One key problem is that the law rarely has an inherent taxonomy.[7] Instead, the law is generally filled with open-ended terms, which may change over time.[7] This can be especially true in common law countries, where each decided case can subtly change the meaning of a certain word or phrase.[8]


The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by fines and federal imprisonment. No portion of this course may be published, duplicated, shared, or used by anyone other than the currently registered subscriber.
In Kessler’s account of the 2014 cocktail reception, Matt Duffer said, “We should work together. What are you working on?” He said he told the brothers a short film he had made about a mysterious disappearance in Montauk, and said he was seeking to produce a feature. He told the brothers where to find more information about the project online. He never heard from them again, and assumed they had no interest.
This can be a humbling and learning experience.  Sometimes, despite our convictions or our research, there will be times we will miss or misinterpret the point and be wrong.  Thinking law and litigation is a mixture of morality, common sense and fairness is a common source of this experience.  Morality, common sense and fairness may be elements in the drafting of laws, but the implementation of law may not favor morality, common sense or fairness as these terms are generally defined.
Defendants who choose to appear pro se may do so because they believe they may gain tactical advantages against the prosecutor, such as obtaining sympathy from the jury, the opportunity to personally address the jury and witnesses. Pro se appearances may also delay the trial proceedings and enhance the possibility of a mistrial and a subsequent appeal.[49]
This material provides general information only. Neither the information nor any views expressed constitutes an offer or an invitation to make an offer, to buy or sell any securities or other investment or any options, futures or derivatives related to such securities or investments. It is not intended to provide personal investment advice and it does not take into account the specific investment objectives, financial situation and the particular needs of any specific person who may receive this material. Investors should seek financial advice regarding the appropriateness of investing in any securities, other investment or investment strategies discussed in this report and should understand that statements regarding future prospects may not be realized. Investors should note that income from securities or other investments, if any, may fluctuate and that price or value of such securities and investments may rise or fall. Accordingly, investors may receive back less than originally invested. Past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance. Any information relating to the tax status of financial instruments discussed herein is not intended to provide tax advice or to be used by anyone to provide tax advice. Investors are urged to seek tax advice based on their particular circumstances from an independent tax professional.
2. Mediation: A flexible, non-binding dispute resolution process in which an impartial neutral third party--the mediator--facilitates negotiations among the parties to help them reach settlement. A hallmark of mediation is its capacity to expand traditional settlement discussions and broaden resolution options, often by going beyond the legal issues in controversy. In the District of Idaho, all civil cases except prisoner petitions, Social Security, student loan recovery, Medicare, forfeiture, Bankruptcy appeals, federal tax suits, Federal Tort Claims Act cases in excess of $1 million, cases involving Temporary Restraining Orders, Preliminary Injunctions or other extraordinary injunctive relief will be automatically assigned to mediation. In addition, all Bankruptcy adversary proceedings and contested cases shall be eligible for assignment to mediation. A party will be allowed to “opt out” of the mediation process only upon successfully demonstrating to the Court by motion that “compelling reasons” exist as to why this mediation should not occur or could not possibly be productive. Mediation is governed by General Order #130.
One of the biggest mistakes pro se litigants make is not doing research. Lawyers count on pro se litigants’ ignorance of the law to win cases. The less a pro se litigant knows, the shorter the litigation process will be. A lawyer can buy a $7000 debt for $700 and pay a $100 fee to sue. Thirty or so days later, he wins a default judgment or a one-hearing judgment. He then has the right to collect the full $7000, the $100 court fee, and case-related costs. He’ll have to collect the money himself, but lawyers wouldn’t buy debt if the practice never paid off. Facing a pro se litigant in court pays off for lawyers almost all the time. Whether you’re a plaintiff or a defendant, you don’t want to get knocked out early because of lack of knowledge. Learn the laws relevant to your case. The more you know, the longer you’ll stay and the less chance a lawyer will have a windfall at your expense.
On November 2, 2018 the United States Supreme Court denied the Trump administration’s application for stay. On November 5, the Department of Justice filed a motion for stay with the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon and hours later filed an application for stay and another petition for a writ of mandamus with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On November 8, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted, in part, the Trump administration’s motion for a temporary stay of District Court proceedings. The Court only placed a stay on trial, so trial preparations continue. During a status conference between U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken and the parties in Juliana v. United States, Judge Aiken indicated she would promptly issue a trial date once the Ninth Circuit lifts the temporary stay it placed on trial.
The fossil fuel industry initially intervened in the case as defendants, joining the U.S. government in trying to have the case dismissed. In April 2016, U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin recommended denial of both motions to dismiss. U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken upheld Judge Coffin's recommendation, with the issuance of an historic November 10, 2016 opinion and order denying the motions. When the defendants sought an interlocutory appeal of that order, Judge  Aiken denied their motions in June 2017.
There are some notable records of pro se litigants winning more than $2,000 as plaintiffs: Robert Kearns, inventor of the intermittent windshield wiper who won more than $10 million from Ford for patent infringement; Dr. Julio Perez (District of Southern New York 10-cv-08278) won approximately $5 million in a federal jury trial from Progenics Pharmaceuticals for wrongful termination as a result of whistleblowing; Reginald and Roxanna Bailey (District of Missouri 08-cv-1456), a married couple, who together won $140,000 from Allstate Insurance in a federal jury trial; George M. Cofield, a pro se janitor, won $30,000 from the City of Atlanta in 1980; and Jonathan Odom, a pro se prisoner, who while still a prisoner, won $19,999 from the State of New York in a jury trial.[42][43][44] Timothy-Allen Albertson, who appeared in pro. per., was awarded $3,500 in 1981 in a judgment by the San Francisco Municipal Court entered against the Universal Life Church for defamation by one of its ministers.[45]

After conducting an empirical study of pro se felony defendants, I conclude that these defendants are not necessarily either ill-served by the decision to represent themselves or mentally ill. ... In state court, pro se defendants charged with felonies fared as well as, and arguably significantly better than, their represented counterparts ... of the 234 pro se defendants for whom an outcome was provided, just under 50 percent of them were convicted on any charge. ... for represented state court defendants, by contrast, a total of 75 percent were convicted of some charge. ... Only 26 percent of the pro se defendants ended up with felony convictions, while 63 percent of their represented counterparts were convicted of felonies ... in federal court ... the acquittal rate for pro se defendants is virtually identical to the acquittal rate for represented defendants.[39]
The attorney will do his or her best to either answer your question or point you in the direction you need to go to get an answer (e.g., retain an attorney or give you the number of an agency that may help). Legal issues come in all shapes and sizes, and LegalLine is intended only to provide assistance to common or general legal questions. If your matter concerns complex matters or facts, you may need to talk to a lawyer in person.
Jim Traficant, a former U.S. Representative from Ohio, represented himself in a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act case in 1983, and was acquitted of all charges. Traficant would represent himself again in 2002, this time unsuccessfully, and was sentenced to prison for 8 years for taking bribes, filing false tax returns, and racketeering.[92][93][94]
The complaints against T-Mobile, AT&T, and Sprint are largely identical, and all also mention how each carrier ultimately provided data to a company called Securus, which allowed low level law enforcement to locate phones without a warrant, as The New York Times first reported in 2018. The complaint against Verizon focuses just on the Securus case. However, Motherboard previously reported how Verizon sold data that ended up in the hands of another company, called Captira, which then sold it to the bail bondsman industry.
Software is provided exclusively to end-users for the usage. This usage is in accordance with the License Agreement. ESET and/or its respective suppliers expressly prohibit any Software reproduction and/or spreading that is not in accordance with License Agreement. Such action is expressly prohibited by law. Everybody who breaks the License Agreement risks the civil and criminal penalties and risks fort litigation, in which ESET will demand adequate compensation and reparation for the legal rights violation.
ESET, ESET software, ESET logo, ESET.com, NOD, NOD32, AMON, PERSPEKT, VIRUS RADAR, VÍRUSOVÝ RADAR, VIROVÝ RADAR, ThreatSense, ThreatSense.Net®, AntiThreat and/or other products or services of ESET mentioned here, are trademarks and registered trademarks of ESET. Other product and company names mentioned herein may be trademarks or trade names of ESET or their respective owners.
Los Angeles, CA Three ERISA lawsuits – two in the District Court for the Central District of California and two in the Northern District of California – show that ERISA can be a powerful tool to protect workers’ rights. Plan participants who claim that their 401k accounts were mismanaged are on a lawsuit hot streak, and patients who have had coverage denied for medical treatments deemed too “investigational” are beginning to see some success, as well.
On Thursday, April 25, 2019, Facebook, Inc.  and Instagram, LLC filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Social Media Series Limited, a New Zealand company, and three other individual defendants for selling fake engagement services to Instagram users. The complaint alleges that the defendants sold fake […] Read More.
1. Arbitration: A dispute resolution process in which one or more arbitrators issue a non-binding judgment on the merits after an expedited, adversarial hearing. The arbitrator’s non-binding decision addresses only the disputed legal issues and applies legal standards. Either party may reject the non-binding ruling and request a trial de novo in district court within 30 days of the arbitrator’s decision. If they do not request trial de novo and do not attempt settlement, the arbitrator’s decision becomes the final, non-appealable decision.
RobecoSAM AG and/or its related affiliated and subsidiary companies are not obligated to monitor any transmission made through the respective Web pages and newsgroups. However, RobecoSAM AG and/or its related affiliated and subsidiary companies have the right, but not the obligation, to monitor any transmission made to and for this Web site. RobecoSAM AG and/or its related affiliated and subsidiary companies may use or disclose information of this site.
On November 2, 2018 the United States Supreme Court denied the Trump administration’s application for stay. On November 5, the Department of Justice filed a motion for stay with the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon and hours later filed an application for stay and another petition for a writ of mandamus with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On November 8, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted, in part, the Trump administration’s motion for a temporary stay of District Court proceedings. The Court only placed a stay on trial, so trial preparations continue. During a status conference between U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken and the parties in Juliana v. United States, Judge Aiken indicated she would promptly issue a trial date once the Ninth Circuit lifts the temporary stay it placed on trial.

Family law and bankruptcy matters merit separate chapters for a number of reasons. Each involves specialized hearings that you don’t find in other types of civil cases. Also, judges usually decide these disputes alone, without juries. And litigants frequently represent themselves in both family law and bankruptcy cases. This is especially true in divorce court, where at least one of the parties is self-represented in 80% of cases.
RobecoSAM AG and its related affiliated and subsidiary companies can not guarantee that the hyperlinks set out on the sites will be accurate at the time of your access. Moreover, the sites pointed at by hyperlinks are developed and possibly maintained by persons over whom RobecoSAM AG or its related affiliated and subsidiary companies have no control. We cannot and do not monitor the sites linked to our pages on the Internet. Accordingly, RobecoSAM AG and/or its related affiliated and subsidiary companies assume no responsibility for the content of any sites referenced to by any hyperlink or otherwise. RobecoSAM AG and/or its related, affiliated and subsidiary companies believe that their making hyperlinks available to publicly accessible Web pages and newsgroups is legally permissible and consistent with the common, customary expectations of those who make use of the Internet.
The LII Supreme Court Bulletin is LII's free Supreme Court email-based subscriber and web-based publication service.[17] The Bulletin provides subscribers with two distinct services.[18] The first is a notification service. LII Bulletin emails subscribers with timely notification of when the US Supreme Court has handed down a decision.[19] It also provides subscribers links to the full opinions of those cases on the LII site.[19]
Legal information systems must also be programmed to deal with law-specific words and phrases. Though this is less problematic in the context of words which exist solely in law, legal texts also frequently use polysemes, words may have different meanings when used in a legal or common-speech manner, potentially both within the same document. The legal meanings may be dependent on the area of law in which it is applied. For example, in the context of European Union legislation, the term "worker" has four different meanings:[9]
Your state’s “Rules of Court.” These are rules that set the procedures and deadlines that the courts in a state must follow. Generally, states have separate sets of rules for different kinds of courts. For example, a state may have one set of rules for its municipal courts (courts that try cases involving limited amounts of money), another for its superior courts (courts that try cases involving higher amounts of money), and still others for its appellate courts (courts that review the decisions of municipal and superior courts). All the rules may, however, be published in a single book. Some states also have separate sets of rules for specialized courts, such as family law courts, which hear cases involving divorce, child custody, and child support; or probate courts, which hear cases involving wills and trusts.
We’re pro se litigants, and we talk to other pro se litigants all day every day, probably more than any lawyer does. I can tell you no one needs to “pit” pro se’s against lawyers; you guys have that covered. Perhaps if you all would take more seriously your obligation to deliver access to justice, we wouldn’t need to stand in for you. Thanks again for the comment.

Before I answer the essence of your question, the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure states and requires that “The request for admissions shall be preceded by the following statement printed in capital letters in a font size at least as large as that in which the request is printed: “FAILURE TO SERVE A WRITTEN ANSWER OR OBJECTION WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY ORCP 45 B WILL RESULT IN ADMISSION OF THE FOLLOWING REQUESTS.” I will presume that you complied with that requirement when you submitted your requests for admissions as the rule states that it “shall” be done in this manner. Sometimes things can sound nit picky but if a party fails to do something that it is required to do and fails to do so, it gives the opposing side ammunition to attack the relief you are requesting that you feel you are entitled to. You are correct, since the opposing side failed to answer your request(s), you now need to file a “Motion to Determine Sufficiency”. You should advise the court in your motion that the opposing party has failed to answer your requests and ask the court to order that each of the matters are admitted. A motion to determine sufficiency is generally geared toward answers that were submitted but possibly not sufficient and parties then move the court to order the party to provide a “sufficient” answer, but since the opposing party failed to provide any answers in your case, you should advise the court of this fact in your motion and that you would like the court to issue an order deeming the matters as admitted. I presume when you say that the opposing party “failed to answer” you mean that the party didn’t answer at all. There is a difference between “failing to answer” and submitting an insufficient answer. Be clear to the court which one it is, if the party failed to answer, so state it, but if the party provided answers that were insufficient, you need to address it in that manner and ask the court to order the opposing party to provide sufficient answers. Be sure to include a copy of the requests for admissions that you served as an exhibit to your motion for the court’s ready reference. Also, under Oregon’s Rule 46A(4) you may apply for an award of expenses incurred in relation to the motion.


noun action, action at law, case, case for deeision, cause in court, claim, contention, contest, controversy, controversy before a court, court accion, dispute, judicial contest, legal action, legal argument, legal contest, legal controversy, legal dispute, legal prooeedings, lis, litigation, matter for judgment, proceeding, suit at law, suit in equity, trial
RobecoSAM AG and/or its related affiliated and subsidiary companies are not obligated to monitor any transmission made through the respective Web pages and newsgroups. However, RobecoSAM AG and/or its related affiliated and subsidiary companies have the right, but not the obligation, to monitor any transmission made to and for this Web site. RobecoSAM AG and/or its related affiliated and subsidiary companies may use or disclose information of this site.
The official ruling of a lawsuit can be somewhat misleading because post-ruling outcomes are often not listed on the internet. For example, in the case of William J. Ralph Jr. v. Lind-Waldock & Company[4] (September 1999), one would assume that Mr. Ralph lost the case when in fact, upon review of the evidence, it as found that Mr. Ralph was correct in his assertion that improper activity took place on the part of Lind-Waldock, and Mr. Ralph settled with Lind-Waldock.[5]
×