DOCSLIB.ORG

Chevron Brief

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chevron Brief Case 1:11-cv-00691-LAK-JCF Document 1847 Filed 12/23/13 Page 1 of 391 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x : CHEVRON CORPORATION, : : Plaintiff, : -against- : : Case No. 11 Civ. 0691 (LAK) : STEVEN R. DONZIGER, et al., : : Defendants. : : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x CHEVRON CORPORATION’S POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166-0193 Telephone: 212.351.4000 Facsimile: 212.351.4035 Attorneys for Plaintiff Chevron Corporation Case 1:11-cv-00691-LAK-JCF Document 1847 Filed 12/23/13 Page 2 of 391 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................ xii TABLE OF DEFINED TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................... xxxv PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................................................... 1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 13 A. TexPet, Remediation, and Release.............................................................................. 13 B. The Aguinda Litigation ............................................................................................... 16 C. The Chevron-Texaco Transaction ............................................................................... 17 D. The Lago Agrio Litigation .......................................................................................... 17 E. Donziger Exploited Corruption in Ecuador to Fuel His Extortion of Chevron in the United States ..................................................................................................... 18 F. Donziger Executed a Pressure Campaign Against Chevron in the United States ........................................................................................................................... 19 G. The Cabrera Fraud ...................................................................................................... 20 H. Obstruction and Cover-Up .......................................................................................... 22 I. Judgment Fraud ........................................................................................................... 23 J. Proceedings in This Action ......................................................................................... 24 ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 25 I. Donziger Has Violated RICO ........................................................................................... 27 A. RICO Provides a Cause of Action for Those Injured by Racketeering ...................... 27 B. Donziger Operates and Manages an Enterprise That Pursues an Extortionate Scheme Against Chevron ............................................................................................ 29 1. Donziger’s Enterprise Is a Multi-Faceted Organization ....................................... 30 a. U.S. Lawyers ................................................................................................... 31 b. Funders ............................................................................................................ 32 c. Public Relations and Lobbying ....................................................................... 33 d. U.S. Consultants.............................................................................................. 34 e. Defendants’ Ecuadorian Agents ..................................................................... 35 2. Donziger is the Undisputed “Cabeza” of the Enterprise ....................................... 38 C. Donziger Has Committed Dozens of RICO Predicate Crimes ................................... 44 1. Donziger’s Attempt to Obtain Money From Chevron Through Fear of Economic Harm Constitutes Extortion ................................................................. 44 i Case 1:11-cv-00691-LAK-JCF Document 1847 Filed 12/23/13 Page 3 of 391 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page a. Extortion Encompasses Attempting and Conspiring to Make Wrongful Use of Fear of Economic Harm to Induce Another to Pay Money ...................................................................................................... 45 b. Donziger Exploited Judicial Weakness and General Corruption in Ecuador to Manufacture “Leverage” Over Chevron ...................................... 46 c. Donziger’s Initial Scheme Was to Corruptly Influence the Court Process Through Party-Nominated and Court-Appointed Experts ................. 48 i. Donziger Submitted Forged Reports to the Ecuadorian Court Under the Signature of the LAP-Nominated Expert, Dr. Charles Calmbacher .................................................................................. 48 ii. Donziger Set Up a Fraudulent “Monitorship” Program With Fernando Reyes to Influence the Neutral Settling Experts ....................... 51 iii. These Schemes Failed to Obtain the Results Donziger Desired ............... 52 d. Unable to Generate Sufficient Leverage Over Chevron in the Judicial Inspection Process, Donziger Implemented a Bolder Scheme to Install and Control Richard Cabrera as the Definitive “Global Expert” .............................................................................................. 53 i. Donziger Recruited and Placed Cabrera as an “Independent” Expert ........................................................................................................ 54 ii. Donziger Hired the LAP Team’s U.S. Consultants to Ghostwrite the Cabrera Reports ................................................................ 56 iii. While the U.S. Consultants Wrote Cabrera’s Report, Donziger and His Co-Conspirators Also Controlled the Fake Cabrera Inspection Process ..................................................................................... 60 iv. Despite Drafting the Report and Controlling Cabrera, Defendants—and Cabrera—Repeatedly Denied the LAP Team’s Role .............................................................................................. 62 v. Defendants Can Neither Explain Nor Defend Their Ghostwriting ............................................................................................. 64 (1) Defendants’ Assertion That Cabrera “Adopted” the Report They Wrote Is False and No Defense Anyway ................................... 65 (2) The LAP Team’s Relationship with Cabrera Was Illegal Under Ecuadorian Law ....................................................................... 67 (3) Donziger’s Attempts to Conceal the Ghostwriting Demonstrate That He Knew it Was Wrongful .................................... 70 (4) Defendants’ Contention That the Cabrera Fraud Is Immaterial Fails .................................................................................. 76 ii Case 1:11-cv-00691-LAK-JCF Document 1847 Filed 12/23/13 Page 4 of 391 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page e. With the Cabrera Report in Hand, Donziger Launched a Full-Scale Pressure Offensive .......................................................................................... 79 i. In the U.S., Defendants Falsely Promoted the Cabrera Report as Independent .......................................................................................... 80 ii. Donziger Took the Cabrera Report to U.S. Federal and State Officials..................................................................................................... 84 f. Donziger Falsely Presented the Fraudulent Judgment as Legitimate and Enforceable .............................................................................................. 86 i. Defendants’ Fingerprints Are all Over the Judgment, in the Form of Their Own Unfiled, Confidential Work Product ........................ 86 ii. Guerra’s Eyewitness Testimony Explains These Anomalies and Confirms the LAP Team’s Ghostwriting of the Judgment ....................... 92 (1) Guerra Approached Chevron With Evidence of the LAP Team’s Fraud ...................................................................................... 93 (2) For Years, Guerra Worked as Zambrano’s Illegal Ghostwriter, and Took Bribes for Favorable Orders During That Time From the LAP Team .......................................................... 95 (3) Zambrano’s Return to the Case Gave Donziger the Opportunity to Seize the Ultimate Prize: Ghostwriting the Judgment Itself .................................................................................... 98 iii. Defendants’ Gamble to Bring Judge Zambrano to Testify Backfired ................................................................................................. 100 (1) Guerra’s Ghostwriting of Orders in Zambrano’s Cases in Exchange for Payments from Zambrano .......................................... 100 (2) Zambrano’s Claims that he Drafted and Dictated the Lago Agrio Judgment ................................................................................. 102 (3) Documents Left Outside Zambrano’s Office Door .......................... 105 (4) Zambrano’s New Employment ......................................................... 106 (5) Defendants’ Failed Attempts to Rehabilitate Zambrano’s Testimony ......................................................................................... 107 (6) Zambrano and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Response to Doug Cassel's Apology for Chevron's Human Rights Violations in Ecuador*
    Response to Doug Cassel's Apology for Chevron's Human Rights Violations In Ecuador* Notre Dame law professor Doug Cassel has sold his credibility as a human rights advocate to Chevron, a company that in Ecuador and elsewhere has proven itself to have committed significant human rights abuses against vulnerable peoples.1 In an argument based heavily on Chevron’s own misrepresentations, Cassel asserts in an “Open Letter” to the human rights community that a court finding in Ecuador that Chevron's toxic dumping decimated indigenous groups and wrecked the delicate Amazon ecosystem is illegitimate. We believe that Cassel's facts are inaccurate or stripped from context, his scholarship is rife with shortcomings, and his conclusions are deeply flawed. What is indisputable is that Cassel remained silent for the entire 18 years of this landmark battle for human rights justice until Chevron recently retained him.2 This is a sad spectacle indeed for a man who has dedicated much of his career to the field of human rights law. Cassel cites supposed "defects" in the Ecuador trial process—defects which take place regularly in trials the world over—to condemn not only the entire eight-year proceeding that resulted in the judgment against Chevron, but also the entire judicial system of a U.S. ally with an independent judiciary where Chevron itself has won multiple cases in recent years.3 Cassel also engages in false and defamatory * This document was prepared by members of the legal team that represents the Lago Agrio plaintiffs. Chevron operated under the “Texaco” brand in Ecuador from 1964-1992.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court Southern District of New York
    Case 1:19-cr-00561-LAP Document 328 Filed 06/09/21 Page 1 of 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES, Plaintiff, 11 Cr. 0691 (LAP) v. STEVEN DONZIGER, Defendant. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AND OFFER OF PROOF Martin Garbus, Esq. OFFIT | KURMAN 590 Madison Ave., 6th Floor New York, NY 10022 Tel. 347.589.8513 Fax. 212.545.1656 [email protected] Counsel for defendant Case 1:19-cr-00561-LAP Document 328 Filed 06/09/21 Page 2 of 26 INTRODUCTION This case is extraordinary. For the first time in the history of the United States, a private law firm with substantial ties to the oil and gas industry has been granted the powers of the United States to prosecute an adverse party and human rights attorney. To make matters worse, Mr. Donziger has been denied a jury of his peers and the presiding judge (the Hon. Loretta Preska) was handpicked by the aggrieved party (the Hon. Lewis Kaplan) to preside over the case.1 Even more disturbing is that this appears to be the nation's first corporate prosecution given that the oil company (Chevron) against whom Mr. Donziger won a large pollution judgement in Ecuador is a client of the very law firm (Seward & Kissel) now prosecuting him after the charges were declined by the U.S. attorney. In short, this case has all the trappings of a deeply troubled and conflicted prosecution run by an oil company. As a threshold issue, this case has been riddled with such structural decay as to warrant immediate dismissal on all charges.
    [Show full text]
  • Donziger's Counterclaims
    Case 1:11-cv-00691-LAK Document 567-1 Filed 08/15/12 Page 94 of 152 COUNTERCLAIMS Defendants and Counter-Claimants Steven Donziger, The Law Offices of Steven R. Donziger, and Donziger & Associates, PLLC (collectively, “Donziger”) for their Counterclaims against Plaintiff and Counter-Claim Defendant Chevron Corporation (“Chevron”) allege as follows: I. INTRODUCTION 1. By no later than 2009, Chevron recognized that it was on the verge of losing one of the largest oil-related contamination lawsuits ever to go to trial, Maria Aguinda y Otros v. Chevron Corporation (the “Lago Agrio Litigation”), which had been wending its way through the United States and then the Ecuadorian court systems for 16 years. Chevron’s own documents, internal environmental audits, and expert analyses confirmed the toxic legacy its predecessor, Texaco, Inc. (“Texaco”), intentionally and knowingly had left behind in the Oriente region of Ecuador. And Chevron was running out of maneuvers to dodge entirely or delay a final adjudication of the claims against it on the merits. 2. Texaco—and, later, a merged entity referring to itself as “ChevronTexaco” — repeatedly had demanded that the trial not be heard in United States federal court in New York, the plaintiffs’ preferred forum, but rather in Ecuador, a forum which Chevron successfully argued to the Southern District of New York and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals was “fair” and “totally adequate” and capable of handling a complex lawsuit against a foreign corporation such as Chevron. In so doing, Chevron did not believe that the 30,000 indigenous peoples and others impacted by Texaco’s misconduct (the “Afectados”)—who grew up drinking from the streams into which the company has admitted dumping billions of gallons of toxic “production water” during its 25 years of profitable operations in the region—would re- 92 685851 Case 1:11-cv-00691-LAK Document 567-1 Filed 08/15/12 Page 95 of 152 file their environmental claims in Ecuador, or that Chevron would fail in its efforts to derail any Ecuadorian lawsuit.
    [Show full text]
  • Will What Happened in Ecuador Stay in Ecuador?
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Richmond Richmond Journal of Global Law & Business Volume 13 | Issue 3 Article 4 2014 Will What Happened in Ecuador Stay in Ecuador? How the Existing International Due Process Analysis May Be Ineffective in Keeping Fraudulent Foreign Judgments Out of U.S. Courts Christopher Lento Louisiana State University Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/global Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, and the Courts Commons Recommended Citation Christopher Lento, Will What Happened in Ecuador Stay in Ecuador? How the Existing International Due Process Analysis May Be Ineffective in Keeping Fraudulent Foreign Judgments Out of U.S. Courts, 13 Rich. J. Global L. & Bus. 493 (2014). Available at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/global/vol13/iss3/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Richmond Journal of Global Law & Business by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 35295-rgl_13-3 Sheet No. 32 Side A 09/09/2014 14:33:00 \\jciprod01\productn\R\RGL\13-3\RGL303.txt unknown Seq: 1 9-SEP-14 8:51 WILL WHAT HAPPENED IN ECUADOR STAY IN ECUADOR? HOW THE EXISTING INTERNATIONAL DUE PROCESS ANALYSIS MAY BE INEFFECTIVE IN KEEPING FRAUDULENT FOREIGN JUDGMENTS OUT OF U.S. COURTS* By: Christopher Lento** ABSTRACT: Recent evidence in the decades-old Chevron/Ec- uador litigation suggests that the $18 billion judgment rendered against Chevron by an Ecuadorian court may have been a product of conspiracy and fraud on an al- most unprecedented scale.
    [Show full text]
  • Nadler Letter .Sept10
    STEVEN R. DONZIGER 245 WEST 104TH STREET, SUITE 7D NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10025 (917) 566-2526 September 10, 2020 The Honorable Jerold Nadler 2132 Rayburn House Office Building The United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Re: Chevron’s Attacks On Environmental Lawyer Steven Donziger Dear Chairman Nadler: I write to ask you to consider initiating an investigation of the oil giant Chevron’s disgraceful misuse of the federal judiciary to violate the fundamental rights of me and my family and to deny 30,000 Ecuadorians—many of them Indigenous peoples—a $9.5 billion judgment as compensation for more than 30 years of appalling environmental crimes. I’ve attached the names of 24,000 people who signed an online letter asking you and Congress to take this action. This case has been covered extensively by the mainstream press and generated attention from hundreds of human-rights lawyers, dozens of Nobel Laureates, the European Parliament’s Subcommittee on Human Rights, and two retired U.S. federal judges, but none of this has changed Chevron’s actions. I believe you are the only person in America who can shift Chevron’s behavior, as a result of the immense power you wield as Chairman of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee. First, as regards my personal situation, I am a graduate of Harvard Law School and one of your constituents as a resident in Manhattan for the last 25 years. As a lead lawyer on this successful and historic case, I have for the last 13 months been detained without trial in my Manhattan apartment where I live with my wife and young son.
    [Show full text]
  • Chevron V. Donziger RICO Opinion
    Case 1:11-cv-00691-LAK-JCF Document 1874 Filed 03/04/14 Page 1 of 497 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x CHEVRON CORPORATION, Plaintiff, -against- 11 Civ. 0691 (LAK) STEVEN DONZIGER, et al., Defendants. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x OPINION Appearances: Randy M. Mastro Richard H. Friedman Andrea E. Neuman FRIEDMAN | RUBIN Reed M. Brodsky William E. Thompson Zoe Littlepage Anne Champion Rainey C. Booth GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP LITTLEPAGE BOOTH Attorneys for Plaintiff Steven Donziger G. Robert Blakey William J. and Dorothy K. O’Neill Attorneys for Defendant Steven Donziger and Professor Emeritus Steven R. Donziger & Associates LLP Notre Dame Law School Amicus Curiae Julio C. Gomez JULIO C. GOMEZ, ATTORNEY AT LAW LLC Attorney for Defendants Hugo Gerardo Camacho Naranjo and Javier Piaguaje Payaguaje Case 1:11-cv-00691-LAK-JCF Document 1874 Filed 03/04/14 Page 2 of 497 Case 1:11-cv-00691-LAK-JCF Document 1874 Filed 03/04/14 Page 3 of 497 Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................1 Facts........................................................................5 I. The Background ...................................................5 A. Texaco’s Operations in Ecuador ................................5 B. Aguinda ...................................................7 1. The Principal Plaintiffs’ Lawyers in Aguinda ...............8
    [Show full text]
  • Chevron's Abusive Litigation in Ecuador
    Rainforest Chernobyl Revisited† The Clash of Human Rights and BIT Investor Claims: Chevron’s Abusive Litigation in Ecuador’s Amazon by Steven Donziger,* Laura Garr & Aaron Marr Page** a marathon environmental litigation: Seventeen yearS anD Counting he last time the environmental lawsuit Aguinda v. ChevronTexaco was discussed in these pages, the defen- Tdant Chevron Corporation1 had just won a forum non conveniens dismissal of the case from a U.S. federal court to Ecuador after nine years of litigation. Filed in 1993, the lawsuit alleged that Chevron’s predecessor company, Texaco, while it exclusively operated several oil fields in Ecuador’s Amazon from 1964 to 1990, deliberately dumped billions of gallons of toxic waste into the rainforest to cut costs and abandoned more than 900 large unlined waste pits that leach toxins into soils and groundwater. The suit contended that the contamination poisoned an area the size of Rhode Island, created a cancer epi- demic, and decimated indigenous groups. During the U.S. stage of the litigation, Chevron submitted fourteen sworn affidavits attesting to the fairness and adequacy of Ecuador’s courts. The company also drafted a letter that was By Lou Dematteis/Redux. Steven Donziger, attorney for the affected communities, speaks with signed by Ecuador’s then ambassador to the United States, a Huaorani women outside the Superior Court at the start of the Chevron former Chevron lawyer, asking the U.S. court to send the case trial on October 21, 2003 in Lago Agrio in the Ecuadoran Amazon. to Ecuador.2 Representative of Chevron’s position was the sworn statement from Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • 14-0826(L) Chevron Corp. V. Donziger UNITED STATES COURT OF
    Case 14-832, Document 319-1, 08/08/2016, 1834987, Page1 of 127 14-0826(L) Chevron Corp. v. Donziger 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 - - - - - - 4 August Term, 2014 5 (Argued: April 20, 2015 Decided: August 8, 2016) 6 Final briefs submitted June 1, 2015 7 Docket Nos. 14-0826(L), 14-0832(C) 8 _____________________________________________________________ 9 CHEVRON CORPORATION, 10 Plaintiff-Appellee, 11 - v. - 12 STEVEN DONZIGER, THE LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN R. DONZIGER, DONZIGER 13 & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, HUGO GERARDO CAMACHO NARANJO, JAVIER 14 PIAGUAJE PAYAGUAJE, 15 Defendants-Appellants, 16 STRATUS CONSULTING, INC., DOUGLAS BELTMAN, ANN MAEST, 17 Defendants-Counter-Claimants, 18 Pablo Fajardo Mendoza, Luis Yanza, Frente De Defensa De La Amazonia aka Amazon 19 Defense Front, Selva Viva Selviva CIA, LTDA, Maria Aguinda Salazar, Carlos Grefa 20 Huatatoca, Catalina Antonia Aguinda Salazar, Lidia Alexandra Aguinda Aguinda, Patricio 21 Alberto Chimbo Yumbo, Clide Ramiro Aguinda Aguinda, Luis Armando Chimbo Yumbo, 22 Beatriz Mercedes Grefa Tanguila, Lucio Enrique Grefa Tanguila, Patricio Wilson Aguinda 23 Aguinda, Celia Irene Viveros Cusangua, Francisco Matias Alvarado Yumbo, Francisco 24 Alvarado Yumbo, Olga Gloria Grefa Cerda, Lorenzo José Alvarado Yumbo, Narcisa Aida 25 Tanguila Narváez, Bertha Antonia Yumbo Tanguila, Gloria Lucrecia Tanguila Grefa, 26 Francisco Victor Tanguila Grefa, Rosa Teresa Chimbo Tanguila, José Gabriel Revelo 27 Llore, María Clelia Reascos Revelo, María Magdalena Rodríguez Barcenes, José Miguel
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Law
    Catholic University Law Review Volume 23 Issue 2 Winter 1973 Article 10 1973 Constitutional Law Joel Cooperrider Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview Recommended Citation Joel Cooperrider, Constitutional Law, 23 Cath. U. L. Rev. 389 (1974). Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol23/iss2/10 This Notes is brought to you for free and open access by CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Catholic University Law Review by an authorized editor of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CASENOTES CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Equal Protection-Disparate Statu- tory Sentencing Schemes for Males and Females Declared Un- constitutional. State v. Chambers, 63 N.J. 287, 307 A.2d 78 (1973). The past decade has been witness to a rapidly mushrooming concern about the inequitable treatment of women before the law. Even the Supreme Court has evinced tacit recognition of this fact.' While sex discrimination seems pervasive throughout our society, the discrimination evidenced by the differential sentencing of male and female criminal offenders presents a particularly egregious example. Disparate sentencing procedures in New Jersey were declared unconstitu- tionally void in State v. Chambers,2 where female defendants had been sentenced for indeterminate terms in the Correctional Institution for Women at Clinton." New Jersey's statutory scheme provided for the sentencing of 1. Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971); Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973). 2. 63 N.J. 287, 307 A.2d 78 (1973). Six cases were consolidated on appeal. All six female defendants either pleaded guilty or were tried and found guilty of gambling offenses.
    [Show full text]
  • The Return of the Unprovided-For Case Michael S
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty and Deans 2017 The Return of the Unprovided-For Case Michael S. Green William & Mary Law School, [email protected] Repository Citation Green, Michael S., "The Return of the Unprovided-For Case" (2017). Faculty Publications. 1871. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/1871 Copyright c 2017 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs THE RETURN OF THE UNPROVIDED-FOR CASE MichaelS. Green* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 764 II. SOME BACKGROUND ........................................................... 765 A. VESTED RIGHTS THEORY ................................................ 765 B. GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST ANALYSIS ............................ 770 1. False Conflicts ........................................................ 770 2. Loss-Allocating and Conduct-Regulating Rules .... 773 3. True Conflicts ......................................................... 77 5 C. UNPROVIDED-FOR CASES ............................................... 777 1. Neumeier v. Kuehner ............................................. 778 2. The Pro-Resident Bias ............................................ 780 III. KRAMER'S "MYTH" OF THE UNPROVIDED-FOR CASE ........... 784 A. AFFIRMATIVE-DEFENSE CAS;ES ...................................... 785 B. NO-CAUSE-OF-ACTION CASES ........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Elaine Hanson Noble V. V. Glen Noble : Brief of Respondent Utah Supreme Court
    Brigham Young University Law School BYU Law Digital Commons Utah Supreme Court Briefs 1986 Elaine Hanson Noble v. V. Glen Noble : Brief of Respondent Utah Supreme Court Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_sc1 Part of the Law Commons Original Brief Submitted to the Utah Supreme Court; digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah; machine-generated OCR, may contain errors. Jackson B. Howard; Howard, Lewis & Petersen; Raymond M. Berry, Richard A. Van Wagoner; Snow, Christensen & Martineau; Attorneys for Defendant. W. Eugen Hansen; Hansen & Dewsnup; Attorneys for Plaintiff. Recommended Citation Brief of Respondent, Noble v. Noble, No. 198620401.00 (Utah Supreme Court, 1986). https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_sc1/1347 This Brief of Respondent is brought to you for free and open access by BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Utah Supreme Court Briefs by an authorized administrator of BYU Law Digital Commons. Policies regarding these Utah briefs are available at http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/utah_court_briefs/policies.html. Please contact the Repository Manager at [email protected] with questions or feedback. '_>**• 4 **»& , fAH /5. K r9 ^ww*\*~ fflfe IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH ELAINE HANSON NOBLE, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Case No. 20401 V. GLEN NOBLE, Defendant/Respondent RESPONDENT'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF W. EUGENE HANSEN JACKSON HOWARD HANSEN & DEWSNUP HOWARD, LEWIS & PETERSEN 2020 Beneficial Life Tower 120 East 300 North 36 South State Street Provo, Utah 84603 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Attorneys for Defendant/Respondent Attorneys for Plaintiff/ Appellant RAYMOND M.
    [Show full text]
  • Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors When One Tortfeasor Enjoys a Special Defense Agaisnt Action by the Injured Party William B
    Cornell Law Review Volume 52 Article 5 Issue 3 Spring 1967 Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors When One Tortfeasor Enjoys a Special Defense Agaisnt Action by the Injured Party William B. Rozell Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation William B. Rozell, Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors When One Tortfeasor Enjoys a Special Defense Agaisnt Action by the Injured Party , 52 Cornell L. Rev. 407 (1967) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol52/iss3/5 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTES CONTRIBUTION AMONG JOINT TORTFEASORS WHEN ONE TORTFEASOR ENJOYS A SPECIAL DEFENSE AGAINST ACTION BY THE INJURED PARTY Both in-theory and by historical development the doctrine of contribution is an equitable one.1 The common law denied any right to contribution among joint tortfeasors, holding that each was fully liable to the plaintiff for all the harm caused.2 A man whose injury resulted from the acts of two equally culpable offenders could-by chance, whim, or design-recover full damages from either, leaving the other free from any legal obligation to his joint tortfeasor or to the victim. But as the number of tort actions based on negligence increased so as to greatly outnumber suits concerning intentional torts, which involve a greater element of moral turpitude, this doctrine was reexamined.3 The inequality of allowing the full burden of loss, for which two or more persons are equally responsible, to be borne by one alone has led more than half of the American jurisdictions, by statute or judicial decision, to allow contribution among joint tortfeasors.4 Special Defenses in ContributionSuits A tortfeasor may escape liability to the injured plaintiff if he enjoys a special defense.
    [Show full text]