Nationwide Criminal Supersearch
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
State of Rhode Island Construction Compendium of Law
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND CONSTRUCTION COMPENDIUM OF LAW Prepared by Richard R. Beretta Adler Pollock & Sheehan P.C. One Citizens Plaza, 8th Floor Providence, RI 02903 401-274-7200 [email protected] www.apslaw.com Revised 2021 RHODE ISLAND LAW COMPENDIUM Pre-Suit and Initial Considerations Pre-Suit Notice Requirements/Prerequisites to Suit In the following situations a plaintiff must generally give notice or a written presentment of a claim to the defendant within a certain time period as a pre-requisite to filing suit. A) Notice of injury on highway or bridge: Claimant must file notice with the town within 60 days of an injury, or else is precluded from recovery. R.I. GEN. LAWS § 45- 15-9(a). B) Claim or demand against municipality: A person with a claim or demand of money against a town must present to the town council of that town an account of that person’s claim, debt, damages, or demand, and how incurred or contracted; if just satisfaction is not made upon that person within forty days after the presentment, the person may commence suit against the town treasurer. R.I. GEN. LAWS § 45-15-5. C) Workers’ compensation benefits: No proceedings for compensation for an injury under the Workers’ Compensation Act may be brought unless a notice of the injury has been given to the employer within thirty days after the occurrence or manifestation of injury. R.I. GEN. LAWS § 28-33-30. D) Breach of warranty: Buyer must provide notice within a reasonable time to seller of an alleged defect in a breach of warranty claim. -
Mcosca ~ Conft
2013-2014 Policy Paper Four Essential Elements Required to Deliver Justice in Limited Jurisdiction Courts in the 21st Century mcoscA ~ Conft-. n.: ncc ofSia iC Court r\dministrawrs Conference of State Court Administrators Author Arthur W. Pepin, Director New Mexico Administrative Office of the Courts A special thanks to Steve Canterbury, Administrative Director of the Courts, West Virginia, for editing the paper. COSCA Policy and Liaison Committee Arthur W. Pepin, Chair Ms. Beth McLaughlin Director, New Mexico Administrative State Court Administrator, Montana Office of the Courts Jody Patel Gregory Linhares, Vice Chair Chief of Staff, Judicial Council of California State Court Administrator, Missouri John W. Smith Rosalyn Frierson Director, Administrative Office of the Director, Court Administration, South Courts, North Carolina Carolina Anne B. Wicks Elisabeth H. Goodner Executive Officer, District of Columbia State Court Administrator, Florida COSCA Policy and Liaison Committee Staff Pamela Harris State Court Administrator, Maryland Richard Y. Schauffler National Center for State Courts Lilia G. Judson Executive Director, Indiana Division of Shannon E. Roth Court Administration National Center for State Courts Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1 I. A Brief History of Limited Jurisdiction Courts .................................................................................. 1 A. King's Justice and -
State of Rhode Island Compendium of Law
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND COMPENDIUM OF LAW Prepared by John F.X. Lawler William F. Burke Adler Pollock & Sheehan, P.C. 175 Federal Street Boston, MA 02110 617-482-0600 Updated 2012 PRE-SUIT AND INITIAL CONSIDERATIONS Pre-Suit Notice Requirements/Prerequisites to Suit In the following situations a plaintiff must generally give notice or a written presentment of a claim to the defendant within a certain time period as a pre-requisite to filing suit. A) Notice of injury on highway or bridge: Claimant must file notice with the town within sixty (60) days of an injury, or else precluded from recovery. R.I. GEN. LAWS § 45-15-9(a) (2012). B) Claim or demand against municipality: A person with a claim or demand of money against a town must present to the town council of that town an account of that person’s claim, debt, damages, or demand, and how incurred or contracted; if just satisfaction is not made upon that person within forty days after the presentment, the person may commence suit against the town treasurer. R.I. GEN. LAWS § 45-15-5 (2012). C) Workers’ compensation benefits: No proceedings for compensation for an injury under the Workers’ Compensation Act may be brought unless a notice of the injury has been given to the employer within thirty (30) days after the occurrence or manifestation of injury. R.I. GEN. LAWS § 28-33-30 (2012). D) Breach of warranty: Buyer must provide notice within a reasonable time to seller of an alleged defect in a breach of warranty claim. -
Bar Bulletin
University of Missouri Bulletin Law Series Volume 18 March 1920 Article 4 1920 Bar Bulletin Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/ls Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Bar Bulletin, 18 Bulletin Law Series. (1920) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/ls/vol18/iss1/4 This Bar Bulletin is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Missouri Bulletin Law Series by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BAR BULLETIN 'Editor .................................................................................... K ENNETH C. SEARS Associate Editor for Bar Association .................................... W. 0. THOMAS OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE MISSOURI BAR ASSOCIATION Officers Of Association President .................................................................. ROBERT LAMAR, HOUSTON ist. Vice-President .................. C. W. GERMAN, KANSAS CITY 2nd. Vice-President ... ............. A. A. WHITsIrr, HARRISONVILLE 3rd. Vice-President ................................................ G. M. SEBREE, SPRINGFIELD Secretary ........................................................ C. H. SKINKER, JR., SPRINGVItLD Assistant Secretary ........................................ EDwAR W. L.AKX, ST. Louis Treasurer ...................... DELL D. DUTTON, COMMERCE BLDG., KANSAS CITY Trial by jury is becoming an increasingly expensive luxury.-AuSTIN W. SCOTT, Harvard Law School, 33 H. L. R. 245. We have no degrees of negligence in Missouri, so far as the right to recover for negligence is concerned. We are confining our remarks to the case in hand, and to the statute under which it is brought.-GRAVES, J., in State ex rel v. Ellison, 213 S. W. 1. c. 461. But why so cautious? DILEMMA OF TRIAL COURTS. -
March 7, 2014 UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS Elisabeth A
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit PUBLISH March 7, 2014 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT ANDY KERR, Colorado State Representative; NORMA V. ANDERSON; JANE M. BARNES, member Jefferson County Board of Education; ELAINE GANTZ BERMAN, member State Board of Education; ALEXANDER E. BRACKEN; WILLIAM K. BREGAR, member Pueblo District 70 Board of Education; BOB BRIGGS, Westminster City Councilman; BRUCE W. BRODERIUS, member Weld County District 6 Board of Education; TRUDY B. BROWN; JOHN C. BUECHNER, Ph.D., Lafayette City Councilman; STEPHEN A. No. 12-1445 BURKHOLDER; RICHARD L. BYYNY, M.D.; LOIS COURT, Colorado State Representative; THERESA L. CRATER; ROBIN CROSSAN, member Steamboat Springs RE-2 Board of Education; RICHARD E. FERDINANDSEN; STEPHANIE GARCIA, member Pueblo City Board of Education; KRISTI HARGROVE; DICKEY LEE HULLINGHORST, Colorado State Representative; NANCY JACKSON, Arapahoe County Commissioner; WILLIAM G. KAUFMAN; CLAIRE LEVY, Colorado State Representative; MARGARET (MOLLY) MARKERT, Aurora City Councilwoman; MEGAN J. MASTEN; MICHAEL MERRIFIELD; MARCELLA (MARCIE) L. MORRISON; JOHN P. MORSE, Colorado State Senator; PAT NOONAN; BEN PEARLMAN, Boulder County Commissioner; WALLACE PULLIAM; PAUL WEISSMANN; JOSEPH W. WHITE, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Governor of Colorado, in his official capacity, Defendant - Appellant. ------------------------------ D’ARCY W. STRAUB; INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE; CATO INSTITUTE; SEN. KEVIN LUNDBERG; REP. JERRY SONNENBERG; REP. JUSTIN EVERETT; REP. SPENCER SWALM; REP. JANAK JOSHI; REP. PERRY BUCK; SEN. TED HARVEY; SEN. KENT LAMBERT; SEN. MARK SCHEFFEL; SEN. KEVIN GRANTHAM; SEN VICKI MARBLE; SEN. RANDY BAUMGARDNER; REP. DAN NORDBERG; REP. FRANK MCNULTY; REP. JARED WRIGHT; REP. CHRIS HOLBERT; REP. KEVIN PRIOLA; SEN. -
Missouri Courts Side with Employees Against the Eighth Circuit
Journal of Dispute Resolution Volume 2011 Issue 2 Article 9 2011 Missouri Courts Side with Employees against the Eighth Circuit: Continued Employment Does Not Constitute Acceptance and Consideration for Mandatory Arbitration Agreements: Frye v. Speedway Chevrolet Cadillac Laura Browne Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr Part of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Commons Recommended Citation Laura Browne, Missouri Courts Side with Employees against the Eighth Circuit: Continued Employment Does Not Constitute Acceptance and Consideration for Mandatory Arbitration Agreements: Frye v. Speedway Chevrolet Cadillac, 2011 J. Disp. Resol. (2011) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol2011/iss2/9 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Dispute Resolution by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Browne: Browne: Missouri Courts Side with Employees Missouri Courts Side with Employees Against the Eighth Circuit: Continued Employment Does Not Constitute Acceptance and Consideration for Mandatory Arbitration Agreements Frye v. Speedway Chevrolet CadillacI I. INTRODUCTION The question of whether continued employment constitutes acceptance and consideration for an employment contract, particularly applied to mandatory arbi- tration clauses, has split the authorities who decide on cases arising out of Mis- souri. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, while purporting to apply Missouri law in cases arising out of Missouri, holds that an employee who continues to work for his or her employer after an arbitration program has been implemented is bound by it by the virtue of his or her continued employ- ment.2 Missouri courts, however, disagree with this interpretation of Missouri law and held in Frye v. -
United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND ANDREW JOSEPH SMITH, : Plaintiff, : : v. : C.A. No. 18-92JJM : TERRYANN SMITH and : KIRSHENBAUM AND KIRSHENBAUM, : Defendants. : REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION PATRICIA A. SULLIVAN, United States Magistrate Judge. On February 26, 2018, Plaintiff Andrew Smith filed pro se a complaint (ECF No. 1) along with an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 2). The IFP motion has been referred to me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Because Plaintiff is currently an incarcerated prisoner serving a recently-imposed sentence for child pornography,1 pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”), codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), even if he is eligible for IFP status, he is still required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350 in increments based on the deposits and funds available in his prisoner trust fund account statement.2 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Because his IFP application did not include a certified copy of the statement showing his transactions for the period (up to six months) preceding the filing of the action, the IFP motion cannot be considered unless and until the statement is received. 1 This information is a matter of public record. State of Rhode Island Department of Corrections, Inmate Search, http://www.doc.ri.gov/inmate search/search.php (last visited Mar. 6, 2018). 2 A prisoner seeking to file IFP must pay as an initial filing fee the greater of twenty percent (20%) of the average monthly deposits to his account or the average monthly balance for the six months prior to the filing of his complaint. -
Review of 09LPHB Initiative Application A.G
October 22, 2009 The Honorable Craig E. Campbell Lieutenant Governor P.O. Box 110015 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0015 Re: Review of 09LPHB Initiative Application A.G. File No: JU2009-200-798 Dear Lieutenant Governor Campbell: You have asked us to review an application for an initiative entitled “An Act recognizing the legal personhood of all human beings including unborn children.” In brief, while we conclude there may be legal issues with the bill, it is not clearly unconstitutional. Therefore, we recommend that you certify the application. Consideration of legal issues that do not rise to the level of “clearly unconstitutional” must be deferred until after the election. Alaskans for Efficient Government, Inc. v. State, 153 P.3d 296, 298 (Alaska 2007). Our detailed analysis follows. I. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED BILL The bill provides: That all human beings, from the beginning of their biological development as human organisms, including the single-cell embryo, regardless of age, health, level of functioning, condition of dependency or method of reproduction, shall be recognized as legal persons in the state of Alaska. II. ANALYSIS Under AS 15.45.070, the lieutenant governor is required to review an application for a proposed initiative and either “certify it or notify the initiative committee of the grounds for denial” within 60 days of receipt. The grounds for denial of an application Hon. Craig E. Campbell October 22, 2009 A.G. File No: JU2009-200-798 Page 2 are that (1) the proposed bill is not in the required form; (2) the application is not substantially in the required form; or (3) there is an insufficient number of qualified sponsors. -
Recent Decisions Ralph H
Notre Dame Law Review Volume 36 | Issue 2 Article 10 3-1-1961 Recent Decisions Ralph H. Witt Raymond Brown Thomas A. McNish Daniel J. Manelli Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Ralph H. Witt, Raymond Brown, Thomas A. McNish & Daniel J. Manelli, Recent Decisions, 36 Notre Dame L. Rev. 202 (1961). Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol36/iss2/10 This Commentary is brought to you for free and open access by NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Law Review by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RECENT DECISIONS CARRIERS - INTERSTATE COMMERCE - No LIMITATION OF LiABILITy PossBI. WHEN GOODS ARE PREcious METALS, EVEN THOUGH SHIPPER UNDERSTATES VALUE. - Defendant, the Railway Express Agency, lost a 50-pound shipment of raw platinum, of declared value $50. Shipper, in a suit for actual value, contended that the limitation of liability to declared value included in defendant carrier's standard express receipt was inoperative to limit shipper's recovery to $50, even though his agent had intentionally misstated the value, knowing that the shipment was actually worth over $56,000. The Appellate Division" indorsed the shipper's contention by modifying the trial court's 2 $50 verdict for the shipper. The Court of Appeals affirmed the modified judgment, awarding the shipper the full value of the shipment. Held: a special contract limiting a carrier's liability for loss or damage caused by it to goods shipped in interstate commerce is invalid to reduce shipper's recovery to agreed amount, less than the actual value of the goods, where the limitation is not based on the shipper's choice between a rate for full value liability and a lower rate for limited liability. -
The Source of Authority for Rules of Court Affecting Procedure
Washington University Law Review Volume 22 Issue 4 January 1937 The Source of Authority for Rules of Court Affecting Procedure Tyrrell Williams Washington University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Courts Commons Recommended Citation Tyrrell Williams, The Source of Authority for Rules of Court Affecting Procedure, 22 WASH. U. L. Q. 459 (1937). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol22/iss4/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW QUARTERLY Volume XXII JUNE, 1937 Number 4 THE SOURCE OF AUTHORITY FOR RULES OF COURT AFFECTING PROCEDURE TYRRELL WILLIAMSt This article is divided into sections as here indicated. Section 1: The Scope of This Article. Section 2: What Is Procedure? Section 3: What Are Rules of Court? Section 4: The Different Functions of the Judiciary under a Typical American State Con- stitution. Section 5: The Doctrine of Inherent Judicial Power over Matters Ancillary to the Administration of Justice, but Concurrent with Non-Frustrating Legislative Power. Section 6: Certain Doctrines at Variance with the Doctrine Presented in Section 5. Section 7: The Doctrine of Legislative Supremacy in the Field of Procedure. Section 8: Constitutional Limitations on the Doctrine of Legislative Supremacy. Section 9: The Doctrine of Inherent and Exclusive Judicial Rule-Making Power in the Field of Procedure. -
Status of the Missouri Law in the Troubled Area of Child Custody, The
Missouri Law Review Volume 27 Issue 3 June 1962 Article 5 1962 Status of the Missouri Law in the Troubled Area of Child Custody, The Joseph W. Lewis Gerald Tockman Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Joseph W. Lewis and Gerald Tockman, Status of the Missouri Law in the Troubled Area of Child Custody, The , 27 MO. L. REV. (1962) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol27/iss3/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Missouri Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Lewis and Tockman: Lewis: Status of the Missouri Law in the Troubled Area of Child Custody THE STATUS OF THE MISSOURI LAW IN THE TROUBLED AREA OF CHILD CUSTODY JOSEPH W. LEwis* AND GERALD TocMAN** The basic principle that the welfare of the child is the paramount con- sideration in judicial determinations of the right to custody has been so universally proclaimed by all courts of Missouri and by the other courts of the land, both federal and state, that the doctrine has indeed become a judicial truism with which no courts take issue. The layman and, indeed, the lawyer unfamiliar with child custody problems might be refreshed to know that here at least is one area of the law where a simple, noble, human precept will guide the courts in resolving the problems presented to them. -
Baker V. Carr MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN Delivered the Opinion Of
Baker v. Carr MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court. This civil action was brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988 to redress the alleged deprivation of federal constitutional rights. The complaint, alleging that by means of a 1901 statute of Tennessee apportioning the members of the General Assembly among the State's 95 counties, 1 "these plaintiffs and others similarly situated, [369 U.S. 186, 188] are denied the equal protection of the laws accorded them by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States by virtue of the debasement of their votes," was dismissed by a three-judge court convened under 28 U.S.C. 2281 in the Middle District of Tennessee. 2 The court held that it lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter and also that no claim was stated upon which relief could be granted. 179 F. Supp. 824. We noted probable jurisdiction of the appeal. 364 U.S. 898 . 3 We hold that the dismissal was error, and remand the cause to the District Court for trial and further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The General Assembly of Tennessee consists of the Senate with 33 members and the House of Representatives with 99 members. The Tennessee Constitution provides in Art. II as follows: "Sec. 3. Legislative authority - Term of office. - The Legislative authority of this State shall be vested in a General Assembly, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives, both dependent on the people; who shall hold their offices for two years from the day of the general election.