Home
Nye Frank's Library tagged → View Popular
cause of action for a declaratory judgment - Yahoo! Search Results
cause of action, declratory judgment
Summary Judgment legal definition of Summary Judgment. Summary Judgment synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
summary judgment n. a court order ruling that no
factual issues remain to be tried and therefore a cause of action or all causes
of action in a complaint can be decided upon certain facts without trial. A
summary judgment is based upon a motion by one of the parties that contends that
all necessary factual issues are settled, and therefore need not be tried. The
motion is supported by declarations under oath, excerpts from depositions which
are under oath, admissions of fact, and other discovery, as well as a legal
argument (points and authorities), that argue that there are no triable issues
of fact and that the settled facts require a summary judgment for the moving
party. The opposing party will respond by counter-declarations and legal
arguments attempting to show that there are "triable issues of fact." If it is
unclear whether there is a triable issue of fact in any cause of action, then
summary judgment must be denied as to that cause of action. The theory behind
the summary judgment process is cut down on unnecessary litigation by
eliminating without trial one or more causes of action in the complaint. The
pleading procedures are extremely technical and complicated, and are
particularly dangerous to the party against whom the motion is made. (See:
summary adjudication of issues
,
cause of action
)
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
le 12. Defenses and Objections – When and How Presented – by Pleading or Motion – Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
1. Defendant shall answer within 20 days of service or, if service was waived, within 60 days after request for waiver was sent
2. Every defense shall be asserted in the responsive pleading except that the following defenses may be made by motion:
1. Lack of jurisdiction over subject matter
2. Lack of jurisdiction over person
3. Improper venue
4. Insufficiency of process
5. Insufficiency of service of process
6. Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
7. Failure to join a party under Rule 19
Ü If (6) is asserted and matters outside the pleading are consider, goes to Rule 56, summary judgment.
3. Judgment on the Pleadings – mainly used by Π when Δ’s responsive pleading doesn’t dispute Π’s claim
7. Consolidation of Defenses in Motion – If a Rule 12 motion is made, any defense or objection is waived unless exception in (h)(2)
8. Waiver or Preservation of Certain Defenses
california law review of summary judgement for 14 th california state - Google Search
Web Results 1 - 10 of about 267,000 for california law review of summary judgement for 14 th california state. (0.34 seconds)
Did you mean: california law review of summary judgement for 14th california state
Search ResultsEFF: DVD-CCA v. BunnerEFF/Andrew Bunner Reply to DVD-CCA Petition for Review to the CA Supreme Court, in DVD-CCA v. ... 14, 2001); EFF/Matthew Pavlovich 2nd Petition to California Supreme .... EFF/Andrew Bunner Motion for Summary Judgment (and Memorandum in Support ... EFF/Matthew Pavlovich Opening Brief to the California state Supreme ...
w2.eff.org/IP/Video/DVDCCA_case/ - 25k - Cached - Similar pages -
California's violent video game ban law ruled unconstitutional by ...Feb 22, 2009 ... First and 14th amendment because even the most graphic on-screen mayhem, ... 2005), and cross-motions for summary judgment, in "Video Software Dealers Ass’n v. ... Leland Yee (余胤良), a California State Senator ... Houston Law Review, April 26, 2007; William Bennet "Bill would restrict ...
en.wikinews.org/wiki/California's_violent_video_game_ban_law_ruled_unconstitutional_by_US_Court_of_Appeals - 61k - Cached - Similar pages -
Michael Atkins - Seattle Trademark Lawyer - Court Denies ...I am a shareholder at the Seattle law firm of Graham & Dunn. ... including federal registrations and disputes in state and federal courts, and before the U.S. ... Trademark Law (6); Lanham Act Section 43(a) (3); Right of Publicity (14) ... Court Denies California Board Sports' Summary Judgment Motion Against Vans ...
seattletrademarklawyer.com/blog/2007/11/20/court-denies-california-board-sports-summary-judgment-motion.html - 38k - Cached - Similar pages -
CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY'S FEES : Out-of-State Attorneys: Dont ...Feb 18, 2009 ... CCP Section 128.7: Client Cannot Appeal Or Seek Writ Review Of Sanctions ... Summary Judgment Reversal In Citys Favor Causes Tumble Of ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 ... However, more liberal state law rules prevailed. ...
www.calattorneysfees.com/.../out-of-state-attorneys-dont-de
questions documents statement of fact for summary judgement.
Estate of Coleman v. Casper Concrete Co.
1997 WY 64
939 P.2d 233
Case Number: 96-30
Decided: 05/19/1997
Supreme Court of Wyoming
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cite as: 1997 WY 64, 939 P.2d 233
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ESTATE OF KEITH D. COLEMAN, Deceased,
By and Through its Personal Representative, Janice Coleman,
Appellant(Plaintiff),
v.
CASPER CONCRETE COMPANY, a Wyoming Corporation;
and Skorcz Electric, Inc., a Wyoming Corporation,
Appellees(Defendants).
Appeal from the District Court, Natrona County,
The Honorable Dan Spangler, Judge
Representing Appellant:
Dallas J. Laird, Casper; and Richard R. Jamieson, Casper.
Representing Appellee:
Richard R. Wilking, Casper; and Earl J. Hanson of Hanson, Roybal, Lee & Todd, P.C., Billings, for Appellee Casper Concrete Company.
Rebecca A. Lewis of Lewis & Associates, P.C., Laramie, for Appellee Skorcz Electric, Inc.
Before TAYLOR, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, GOLDEN,* and LEHMAN, JJ.
* Chief Justice at time of oral argument.
TAYLOR, Chief Justice.
[¶1] In 1989, the State of Wyoming contracted with appellees to build a highway intersection and install traffic lights. In June of 1993, during a malfunction of those lights, a young man was killed in a collision with a drunk driver at the intersection. Although the State successfully sought shelter in immunity and the drunk driver eventually settled with the decedent's estate, suit survived against appellees on disparate theories of negligence, strict liability and res ipsa loquitur. From an adverse summary judgment, the decedent's estate prosecutes this appeal. We affirm.
I. ISSUES
[¶2] The decedent's mother, Janice Coleman, as personal representative of her son's estate (appellant), states the following issues:
I. Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of appellees in reliance on Lynch v. No
-
Is there a genuine
issue of material fact regarding the remaining elements of the negligence claim
and the strict liability and res ipsa loquitur claims?[¶3] Appellee, Skorcz
Electric, Inc. (Skorcz), takes a more elementary approach to its statement of
the issue:1. Did the district court err in granting
summary judgment to Skorcz Electric, Inc.?[¶4] Appellee, Casper
Concrete Company (Casper Concrete), follows Skorcz's lead in stating the
issue:1. Did the district
court err in granting summary judgment to Casper Concrete
Company?
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARDSummary judgment is proper if the moving party can demonstrate that there is no genuineissue of material fact and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In considering whether genuine issues of material fact exist, the Co
Did you mean:
SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
STANDARD Summary
judgment is proper
of
the
moving party can demonstrate that there is no genuineissue of material fact and
it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In considering whether genuine
issues of material fact exist, the Co
Search Results
877
F.2d 728
Id. Under that standard, summary judgment is proper only
where "the pleadings,
...
If the moving party satisfies this
burden, the opponent must set forth specific
...
Such an issue
of fact is only a genuine issue if it can reasonably
be
...
of material fact exists no longer precludes the use of
summary judgment.
...
bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/877/877.F2d.728.87-4418.html
- 30k -
Cached
-
Similar
pages
-
DOJ Appeal Brief Re Summary
Judgment Requirements / Antitrust Laws
...
4 2 The central economic fact about delivering circulars
to households is that,
....
if "there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party
is
...
If Advo met that standard, summary judgment was
improper even if,
....
In considering whether to
attempt entry, a prospective entrant would
...
www.lect
law
.com/files/ant14.htm - 48k -
Cached
-
Similar
pages
-
[PDF]
IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
no
genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is
entitled
....
the court must consider “whether
or not the individual can perform the essential functions of the
.....
defendant Penn-Del Directory Company for summary
judgment (Document No.
...
defendant is not entitled to
judgment as a matter of law,
...
www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/99D0387P.pdf -
Similar
pages
-
Brief for Amicus Curiae
United States of America in Support of
...
Summary judgment is properly granted only if
"there is no genuine issue as to any materia
1 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION PETER JOSE SMITH, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
III. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARDSummary judgment is proper if the moving party can demonstrate that there is no genuineissue of material fact and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In considering whether5genuine issues of material fact exist, the Court determines whether a reasonable jury could returna verdict for the nonmoving party in the face of all the evidence presented. The Court is required6to construe all facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
-
III. SUMMARY
JUDGMENT STANDARDSummary judgment
is proper if the moving party can demonstrate that there is no
genuineissue of
material fact and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In considering
whether5 genuine issues
of material fact exist, the Court determines whether a reasonable jury could
returna verdict for
the nonmoving party in the face of all the evidence presented. The Court is
required6 to construe all
facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party.
damages Found Document:Timmons v. Royal Globe Ins. Co.
Oklahoma Supreme Court Cases
Timmons v. Royal Globe Ins. Co.
1985 OK 76
713 P.2d 589
56 OBJ 2241
Case Number: 59451
Decided: 09/24/1985
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cite as: 1985 OK 76, 713 P.2d 589
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN D. TIMMONS, APPELLANT,
v.
ROYAL GLOBE INSURANCE COMPANY, D/B/A ROYAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLEE.
The Court of Appeals' Opinion is Vacated; The Trial Court's Order is Affirmed in part and Reversed in part and the Cause Remanded. Certiorari to the Court of Appeals, Div. I.
¶0 In an action for breach of an insurer's implied duty to deal fairly and act in good faith the jury returned a verdict for the insured, with an award for actual damages, mental pain and suffering and punitive damages. The judgment was affirmed in a prior appeal on the condition of partial remittitur of the punitive damages award. After remittitur on remand, the District Court, Creek County, Jess I. Miracle, Judge, denied prejudgment interest, limiting all postjudgment interest to the rate in effect when judgment was rendered. The Court of Appeals affirmed. We granted certiorari.
K.D. Bodenhamer, Messrs. McBride & Bodenhamer, Jenks, W.C. "Bill" Sellers, Sapulpa, for appellant.
Bert M. Jones, Chris Rhodes, Richard M. Eldridge, Messrs. Rhodes, Hieronymus, Jones, Tucker & Gable, Tulsa, for appellee.
James K. Secrest, II, Tulsa, for amicus curiae Oklahoma Ass'n of Defense Counsel.
John A. Ladner, Jr., Tulsa, for amicus curiae Sun Pipeline Co.
OPALA, Justice.
[713 P.2d 590]
¶1 Four issues are presented by this appeal from a postjudgment order: [1] Does the prejudgment interest authorized by 12 O.S. 1971 § 727 (2)1 apply only when recovery is upon a cause of action [claim] for personal injury or also when a severed element of recovery allowed and separately identified in the jury verdict may be termed to be on
Selected Tags
Related Tags
Sponsored Links
Top Contributors
Groups interested in judgement
-
END TIME
Items: 189 | Visits: 27
Created by: Malachi Smith
Diigo is about better ways to research, share and collaborate on information. Learn more »
Join Diigo