DOCSLIB.ORG

Texas Tort Claims Act Basics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Texas Tort Claims Act Basics Tort Claims Act Basics TEXAS TORT CLAIMS ACT BASICS Dick Evans, TMLIRP Lori Gillespie, TMLIRP William M. McKamie McKamie Krueger, LLP Laura Mueller Assistant General Counsel Texas Municipal League i Tort Claims Act Basics Table of Contents Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1 I. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY ........................................................................................... 1 II. GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS v. PROPRIETARY FUNCTIONS: CITY LIABILITY UNDER THE ACT ................................................................................................... 1 III. WAIVER OF IMMUNITY ........................................................................................................ 3 A. Generally ................................................................................................................... 3 B. Condition of Real Property ....................................................................................... 4 1. Premise Defects—Statutory Duty ............................................................................. 5 2. Standard of Care—Invitee ........................................................................................ 6 3. Standard of Care—Licensee ..................................................................................... 6 4. Standard of Care—Trespassers ................................................................................. 6 5. Special Defects ......................................................................................................... 7 6. Recreation Facilities ................................................................................................ 8 C. Condition or Use of Tangible Personal Property ...................................................... 9 1. Tangible Property ................................................................................................... 10 2. Use of Property ....................................................................................................... 11 D. Use of Motor-Driven Vehicle and Equipment ........................................................ 12 E. Joint Enterprise ....................................................................................................... 13 IV. EXEMPTIONS AND EXCEPTIONS FROM THE WAIVER OF IMMUNITY ............ 14 A. Exceptions to Waiver of Immunity ......................................................................... 14 B. Specific Exceptions and Exemptions ...................................................................... 15 1. Discretionary Acts. Texas Civil Practices & Remedies Code § 101.056 ............. 15 2. Method for Providing Police/Fire Protection—Texas Civil Practices & Remedies Code § 101.055(3) ................................................................................................... 15 3. Intentional Tort—Texas Civil Practices & Remedies Code § 101.057 .................. 15 4. Traffic Signs, Signals, and Warning Devices— Texas Civil Practices & Remedies Code § 101.060 ....................................................................................................... 15 C. Plea to the Jurisdiction ............................................................................................ 16 V. INDIVIDUAL IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY ..................................................................... 16 VI. DAMAGES ........................................................................................................................... 18 A. Statutory Limits ...................................................................................................... 18 B. Damages ................................................................................................................. 19 VII. MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS ........................................................................................ 19 A. Notice of Claim ....................................................................................................... 19 B. Payment of Award against Employee ..................................................................... 20 C. Insurance ................................................................................................................. 20 D. Representation ........................................................................................................ 21 ii Tort Claims Act Basics APPENDIX ...................................................................................................................................... 1 Appendix: Legal Q & A for Government Officials and Clients .......................................... 1 iii Tort Claims Act Basics Laura Mueller Assistant General Counsel Texas Municipal League 1821 Rutherford Lane, Suite 400 Austin, Texas 78754 Laura, originally from Yukon, Oklahoma, graduated summa cum laude from the University of Oklahoma in 2001 with a liberal arts degree. She attended the University of Texas School of Law, where she was active in student recruiting, advocacy programs, and the Texas Journal on Civil Liberties and Civil Rights. While in law school, Laura worked as a law clerk for TML and as an intern for the Travis County Juvenile Public Defender’s Office. After graduating with honors in 2004, Laura clerked for the Supreme Court of Texas. She joined the TML legal staff as legal counsel in November 2006. Laura became Assistant General Counsel in November 2010. Laura was given the TML Employee of the Year Award for 2013. Laura specializes in employment law, sign regulation, and writes amicus briefs for member cities. Laura has spoken at conferences conducted by the Texas Municipal League, Texas City Attorneys Association, Houston-Galveston Area Council of Governments, Texas Municipal Human Resources Association, and at the Government Law Boot Camp on topics related to employment law, types of cities, ethics, open government, and other municipal topics. iv Tort Claims Act Basics considered to have “sovereign immunity.” Reata Const. Corp. v. City of Dallas, 197 S.W.3d 371, 374 Introduction (Tex., 2006). It is not an exhaustive analysis of the Act. The paper does not address liability under the Federal Civil Rights Act, immunities under which are Governmental entities are generally immune from governed by the United States Constitution and liability. The Tort Claims Act waives governmental federal laws. The Tort Claims Act and the liability and sovereign immunity of these entities and limits under the Act have no application to the determines the liability of governmental entities Federal Civil Rights Act. Generally, actions brought related to personal injury and property damage caused under the Texas Tort Claims Act involve allegations of by the negligence of a government employee or defect negligent conduct, while actions brought under the in government property. Federal Civil Rights Act involve allegations of intentional conduct. I. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY II. GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS v. Under the English common law, a person PROPRIETARY FUNCTIONS: CITY could not sue the state for a wrong committed LIABILITY UNDER THE ACT against that person – “The King could do no wrong.” Because English common law is the Before the enactment of the Tort Claims Act, source of much of the law initially adopted in the Texas courts held that a municipality could not be held United States, this country followed that doctrine. liable for property damages, personal injury, or death Texas courts held that, under the doctrine of arising from a “governmental function” performed by sovereign immunity, the state and its political the municipality. However, municipalities were subdivisions were not liable for the torts of their liable for damages, injuries, or death arising from a agents or officers unless there was a “proprietary function,” where the courts treated constitutional or statutory waiver of immunity. In municipalities in the same manner that a private entity 1969, the Texas Legislature enacted such a waiver of would be treated and subjected them to the same risks sovereign immunity when it passed the Texas as private entities. Dilley v. City of Houston, 222 Tort Claims Act. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE S.W.2d 992 (Tex. 1949). See also Tooke v. City of Ann. §101.001, et. seq. (Vernon 2005 & Supp. Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325, 343 (Tex. 2006). As 2006). (Originally enacted as Tex. Rev. Stat. Art. counties were regarded as legal subdivisions of the 6252-19). The Act is a partial waiver of the State, they also could not perform proprietary sovereign or governmental immunity of functions and had no tort liability until the passage of governmental units of the state. ‘Governmental the Tort Claims Act. Distinguishing between unit’ as used in the Act means the State and its governmental and proprietary functions based on a various agencies, departments, bureaus, boards, reading of court cases was difficult and confusing. commissions, etc., and political subdivisions of the Generally, governmental functions were those which state, including cities, counties, school districts, the municipality was required by state law to perform and other types of districts created by state law or in the interest of the public. Proprietary functions state constitution. See, for example, Texas A&M were those which the municipality chose to perform Univ. v. Bishop, 996 S.W.2d 209 (Tex. App.— when it believed it would be in the best interest of its Houston [14th Dist.] 1999,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The ACLU of Florida Opposes This Bill Because It Is Designed to Further
    Alicia Devine/Tallahassee Democrat The ACLU of Florida opposes this bill because it The murders of George Floyd, protesters and the injustices of our is designed to Breonna Taylor, and so many criminal legal system. others at the hands of police further silence, Floridians wishing to exercise their reinvigorated Floridians’ calls for punish, and constitutional rights would have to police reform and accountability. weigh their ability to spend a night criminalize those Millions took to the streets to in jail if the protest is deemed an advocating for exercise their First Amendment “unlawful assembly.” Peaceful racial justice and rights and demand justice. protesters could be arrested and an end to law Under existing law, these peaceful charged with a third-degree felony enforcement’s protests were met with tear gas, for “committing a riot” even if they excessive use of rubber bullets, and mass arrests. didn’t engage in any disorderly and force against Black Under existing law, armed officers violent conduct. in full riot gear repeatedly used and brown people. Floridians need justice – real excessive force against peaceful police accountability and criminal unarmed protesters. justice reform. Florida’s law Florida’s militaristic response enforcement and criminal legal against Black protesters and their system have no shortage of tools to allies demanding racial justice keep the peace and punish violent stands in stark contrast to the actors, and they’ve proven their lackluster, and at times complicit, tendency time and time again to police response we saw to the misapply these tools to punish failed coup by white supremacist Black and brown peaceful terrorists in D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Making the Best of Felony Murder
    University at Buffalo School of Law Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 2011 Making the Best of Felony Murder Guyora Binder University at Buffalo School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/journal_articles Part of the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Guyora Binder, Making the Best of Felony Murder, 91 B.U. L. Rev. 403 (2011). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/journal_articles/287 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES MAKING THE BEST OF FELONY MURDER GuYoRA BINDER* INTRODUCTION: THE WORST OF FELONY MURDER ........................................ 404 I. THE PRINCIPLES OF FELONY MURDER LIABILITY ............................... 411 A. The Constructive Interpretationof Legal Principle .................... 411 B. The Development of Felony Murder Liability ............................. 413 C. Objections to Felony Murder ...................................................... 421 1. Theoretical O bjections ........................................................... 422 2. Constitutional Objections ...................................................... 428 D. Felony Murder as a Crime of Dual Culpability .........................
    [Show full text]
  • Page 243 TITLE 19—CUSTOMS DUTIES § 1592 Possible for Such
    Page 243 TITLE 19—CUSTOMS DUTIES § 1592 possible for such merchandise, or any part (4) The external display of false registration thereof, to be introduced into the United numbers, false country of registration, or, in States unlawfully. the case of a vessel, false vessel name. (c) Civil penalties (5) The presence on board of unmanifested merchandise, the importation of which is pro- Any person who violates any provision of this hibited or restricted. section is liable for a civil penalty equal to (6) The presence on board of controlled sub- twice the value of the merchandise involved in stances which are not manifested or which are the violation, but not less than $10,000. The not accompanied by the permits or licenses re- value of any controlled substance included in quired under Single Convention on Narcotic the merchandise shall be determined in accord- Drugs or other international treaty. ance with section 1497(b) of this title. (7) The presence of any compartment or (d) Criminal penalties equipment which is built or fitted out for smuggling. In addition to being liable for a civil penalty (8) The failure of a vessel to stop when under subsection (c) of this section, any person hailed by a customs officer or other govern- who intentionally commits a violation of any ment authority. provision of this section is, upon conviction— (1) liable for a fine of not more than $10,000 (June 17, 1930, ch. 497, title IV, § 590, as added or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or Pub. L. 99–570, title III, § 3120, Oct.
    [Show full text]
  • 30-15-1. Criminal Damage to Property. 30-15-3. Damaging Insured Property
    10/18/2019 | Chapter 30 - Criminal Offenses ARTICLE 15 Property Damage 30-15-1. Criminal damage to property. 30-15-3. Damaging insured property. ARTICLE 16 Larceny 30-16-1. Larceny. 30-15-1. Criminal damage to property. Criminal damage to property consists of intentionally damaging any real or personal property of another without the consent of the owner of the property. Whoever commits criminal damage to property is guilty of a petty misdemeanor, except that when the damage to the property amounts to more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) he is guilty of a fourth degree felony. History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-15-1, enacted by Laws 1963, ch. 303, § 15-1. 30-15-3. Damaging insured property. Damaging insured property consists of intentionally damaging property which is insured with intent to defraud the insurance company into paying himself or another for such damage. Whoever commits damaging insured property is guilty of a fourth degree felony. History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-15-2, enacted by Laws 1963, ch. 303, § 15-2. 30-16-1. Larceny. A. Larceny consists of the stealing of anything of value that belongs to another. B. Whoever commits larceny when the value of the property stolen is two hundred fifty dollars ($250) or less is guilty of a petty misdemeanor. C. Whoever commits larceny when the value of the property stolen is over two hundred fifty dollars ($250) but not more than five hundred dollars ($500) is guilty of a misdemeanor. D. Whoever commits larceny when the value of the property stolen is over five hundred dollars ($500) but not more than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) is guilty of a fourth degree felony.
    [Show full text]
  • Florida Arson Law -- the Evolution of the 1979 Amendments
    Florida State University Law Review Volume 8 Issue 1 Article 5 Winter 1980 Fla. Stat. § 806.01: Florida Arson Law -- The Evolution of the 1979 Amendments Lawrence W. Smith Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr Part of the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Lawrence W. Smith, Fla. Stat. § 806.01: Florida Arson Law -- The Evolution of the 1979 Amendments, 8 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 81 (1980) . https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol8/iss1/5 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLA. STAT. § 806.01: FLORIDA ARSON LAW-THE EVOLUTION OF THE 1979 AMENDMENTS LAWRENCE W. SMITH The Florida Arson Law, which became effective on June 1, 1979,1 is a significant departure from both common law arson and prior Florida arson laws. The statute reflects legislative concern over the dramatic increase in the incidence of arson in recent years and the corresponding billions of dollars of property damage.2 The new Florida law deals with the arsonist firmly. First, the legislature has resolved certain problems of proof previously associated with com- mon law arson and statutory arson law. Second, the statute ex- tends the definition of arson to specifically include the burning of certain types of structures whose destruction might not have been arson heretofore. Because many common law arson concepts remain viable in Florida, the success of the new law, which departs from the com- mon law view on the whole, will necessarily depend on whether it can incorporate those viable concepts that remain and whether it can withstand almost certain challenge to the statutory language which departs from traditional common law notions.
    [Show full text]
  • Torts in the Oil Patch
    Torts in the Oil Patch Prof. Tracy Hester September 11, 2017 Announcements • Field trip to Weatherford drilling rig: Friday, Sept. 29, 2017 • Guest speakers – – Dr. John Nielsen-Gammon, Wednesday, Sept. 13, at 6 pm in BLB 109 – Roger Martella, GE VP for EHS, Wednesday, Oct. 25, time and place TBA – Dr. Gavin Clarkson - November • IEL, AIPN, GCPA Review • Basics of Oilfield E&P • Types of contamination created by E&P work • Categories of likely tort actions • Reasons to pursue tort remedy rather than agency action Environmental Law of First Resort: Tort Claims • Nuisance • Negligence (including negligence per se) • Trespass • Unjust Enrichment • Emotional Distress • Strict Liability – Ultrahazardous Activity • Exotic claims (business torts, civil conspiracy) Likely Parties • Plaintiffs: – Surface estate owners – Neighbors – both surface and mineral estate owners – Agencies and governments – NGOs • Defendants: working interest owners, operators and contractors Duties Owed by Oil Company • Be a reasonably prudent operator • “Restore” the surface ? • plow depth • concrete pads and foundations? • oil, saltwater, etc. contamination? • What else does the lease (contract) say? Nuisance • Material or substantial injury to a person of ordinary health and sensibilities in that particular locale – private vs public nuisance • no statute of limitations if public nuisance • diminution in property value vs injunction or abatement (cost) • yesterday’s economic accommodation may become tomorrow’s nuisance (Texas: to persons of “ordinary” sensibilities) • Permit to discharge is usually not a defense • Permanent, temporary, and/or continuing • “Coming to the nuisance” doctrine may not be applicable if “temporary” and “continuing” Trespass • Conduct that leads to the invasion of a person’s interest in his or her rightful exclusive possession of property • La: unlawful physical invasion of property of another • Typically, intentional tort that requires a showing of fault • Often 2 or 3 year SOL.
    [Show full text]
  • Threatening to Destroy Or Damage Property
    Threatening To Destroy Or Damage Property Quartzitic and prosecutable Caspar never purify surlily when Kingsly knobble his allises. Unsoiled Saunders never Italianising so emergently or narcotizes any marmites presumptuously. Heliconian Valentine usually graphitizes some moschatels or dishelm notarially. Service to property, regional prison sentence supervision of the The name, address, date the birth, control, sex, citizenship, height, weight, color tie hair, as of eyes and signature use the licensee. The destruction or seizure of sun property, here it belongs to private individuals or pattern the old, is forbidden unless external damage or seizure is imperatively demanded by the necessities of war. Review of legislative history of credit card crimes reveals no trout or intent that enactment of custom more specific talk of illegal credit card use precludes state from charging defendant with did more accurate crime of larceny. Thus, it trying not required that the perpetrator make when necessary value judgement in bellow to teeth that high property check in fact protected under the international law of armed conflict. Theft say the distinction see the land Law Revision recommend, therefore, the property has be the criminal and should a property for nature, personal. Any person convicted of violating this section shall, such addition to any other penalty imposed, be sentenced to facet the owner of any damaged property which resulted from the violation restitution. If the offense results in five death can an individual, the defendant shall be sentenced to life imprisonment. State police or threatening to destroy damage property of. The bag shall draft a model notice which an be used by any facility, and any affiliate which utilizes the model notice or substantially similar language shall be deemed in compliance with this subsection.
    [Show full text]
  • Proof of Fault in Media Defamation Litigation
    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 38 Issue 2 Issue 2 - March 1985 Article 1 3-1985 Proof of Fault in Media Defamation Litigation Lackland H. Bloom, Jr. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Lackland H. Bloom, Jr., Proof of Fault in Media Defamation Litigation, 38 Vanderbilt Law Review 247 (1985) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol38/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW VOLUME 38 MARCH 1985 NUMBER 2 Proof of Fault in Media Defamation Litigation Lackland H. Bloom, Jr.* I. INTRODUCTION ..................................... 249 II. ACTUAL MALICE .................................... 255 A. Clear and Convincing Evidence ............. 255 B. Knowledge of Falsity ...................... 256 C. Reckless Disregardfor the Truth ........... 259 1. Il1 W ill .............................. 260 2. Failure to Investigate or Verify ........ 264 (a) Lead Time .................... 267 (b) Seriousness of the Charge....... 270 (c) Inherent Improbability ......... 273 (d) Awareness of Inconsistent Infor- m ation ........................ 275 (e) No Source ..................... 277 (f) Obvious Reason to Doubt Source 278 (g) Failure to Consult an Obvious Source ........................ 283 (h) Failure to Consult an Expert ... 285 (i) No Further Verification Following Denial ........................ 286 * Associate Professor of Law, Southern Methodist University. B.A. 1970, Southern Methodist University; J.D. 1973, University of Michigan. I wish to thank Marilyn Lahr, J.D. 1986, Southern Methodist University School of Law, for her valuable assistance and the Southern Methodist University School of Law for its generous support.
    [Show full text]
  • Res Ipsa Loquitur and Gross Negligence
    RES IPSA LOQUITUR AND GROSS NEGLIGENCE I N A DICTUM in the recent case of Garland v.Greenspan,' the Supreme Court of Nevada echoed an apparently unanimous rule2 that the doc- trine of res ipsa loquitur will not raise an inference3 of gross negligence. The facts as found by the trial court sitting without a jury showed that one of the plaintiffs4 was injured when the defendants' automobile swerved to the left of the highway and then to the right, overturning on striking the right shoulder. The defendant driver had lost control of her car for "some unexplained reason" after passing another automobile at a speed in excess of sixty-five miles an hour and in returning to the right-hand line while negotiating a turn to the right. Under the Nevada statute,6 a guest passenger can recover in tort from the host driver only where injury was caused by the driver's in- toxication, wilful misconduct, or gross negligence. The Supreme Court of Nevada, affirming the judgment of the trial court, held that gross neg- ligence or wilful misconduct had not been established as a matter of law, '_Nev.-, 323 P.±d 27 (1958). 'See Harlan v. Taylor, z39 Cal. App. 30, 33 P.zd 422 (934); Lincoln v. Quick, 133 Cal. App. 433, 24 P.2d 245 (1933); O'Reilly v. Sattler, x4i Fla. 770, 193 So. 817 (1940); Minkovitz v. Fine, 67 Ga. App. 176, i9 S.E.zd 561 (1942); Rupe v. Smith, x~i Kan. 6o6, 323 P.zd 293 (x957); Winslow v. Tibbetts, 231 Me.
    [Show full text]
  • Fraud and Scams: a Moving Picture
    issue 145 August 2018 1 ombudsman news essential reading for people interested in financial complaints – and how to prevent or settle them fraud and scams: a moving picture It was only relatively recently, in 2015, that we shared our insight into banking complaints involving phone fraud. Back then, it seemed the fact older people were more likely to use landlines meant they were particularly at risk of “no hang up” scams. Caroline Wayman chief ombudsman Today, it’s often loopholes in This makes it harder for us to And as our case studies show, in this issue new technologies, rather than reach an answer both sides are the evolution of criminals’ in old ones, that fraudsters happy with. But it doesn’t mean methods – in particular, ombudsman are using to their advantage. usual standards don’t apply. As their sophisticated use of focus: fraud and Your first step toward being our case studies illustrate, we’ll technology and manipulative scams scammed may be putting your expect to see clear evidence “social engineering” – means page 3 details into an identical, but that banks have investigated it’s an increasingly difficult fake banking website – or thoroughly – and reflected hard case to make. fraud and scams responding to a text message on what more might have been case studies that, on the face of it, looks like done to protect their customers page 8 it’s from your bank. and their money. first quarter Unlike most other complaints We also often hear from banks statistics we see, complaints about fraud that their customers have acted page 14 and scams involve – whether with “gross negligence” – and it’s accepted or suspected – this means they’re not liable for Q&A – our new the actions of a criminal third the money their customer has case-handling party.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuisance – Elements
    Nuisance – Elements Nuisance is the cause of action you use when someone is interfering with your right to enjoy your property; but trespass is not applicable Private Nuisance: Elements: 1) Plaintiff has the right to possess or ownership of land; 2) The defendant undertakes an action that interferes with the use or enjoyment of that land; 3) In a manner that is substantial and in a manner a reasonable person would not tolerate (subjective test) Public Nuisance: - This occurs when the interference is with public property, not specifically with anyone’s private property (e.g., a street or a park) - Such an action can typically only be brought by a governmental authority because no person has standing to bring an action for public nuisance. Of course, if the private person suffered specific economic harm, she may be able to sue for negligence, etc. Nuisance - Other Factors - The nuisance must have arisen from an act that’s actionable as an intentional, negligent or strict liability tort! - The actions that give rise to the nuisance must be “unreasonable” under the circumstances. Thus: A “balancing test” must be performed between the harm that the nuisance causes and the benefits of the activities that create the nuisance, taking into account: o The economic and social importance of the activity o The burden on the defendant and on society of forcing the activity to cease o Whether there is a more appropriate place to conduct the activity - All the rules regarding causation and damages apply, as with negligence and strict liability - The defenses of assumption of risk and contributory negligence apply; as with any other tort.
    [Show full text]
  • Lien Id Kane County
    Lien Id Kane County Caesar is evidentiary and calibrating tastefully while arty-crafty Hayward revets and miscued. Lentoid and cany Xymenes never edulcorated his margarita! Varicelloid and aerobiological Lanny vitalized her bargepoles straighten inquisitorially or sterilized explanatorily, is Nealon druidic? Kane County highway Accident Lawyers Using a Defendant's Guilty Plea to. The gricultural landowners to process server could save you? The five funds are behind Bond and our Fund Junior Lien Reserve Fund. Parcel Deed Points Base Map Parcels For Aerial Images Section Township Range Select ship for Transparency Aerial Images Base Map Historical Parcels. Kane County Illinois Public Records Directory Quickly access public record. Kane County Treasurer. Velasquez v Downer Place Holdings LLC In re Cnty. Kane County Assessment Office. In the Circuit Court reverse the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit Kane County Illinois. THOMPSON v JARED KANE COMPANY INC FindLaw. Meanwhile sitting a New York court FXR filed a mechanic's lien on the benefit and. Alene in which represents a modern browser. Foreclose his lien the material men and laborers who also filed liens. A Idaho Falls based insulation Subcontractor asked TRADITION LIEN SERVICE to spend a. Fayette county meeting schedule describing each state or lien? Kane County construction Accident Lawyers Using a Defendant's. Library ID No Spaces or EZ Username Phone call four digits or EZ Password. Fulton County Tax Lien Amazon AWS. Illinois Anti-Predatory Lending Database. Will County Recorder. The cemetery of lien was filed pursuant to section 71305 Florida Statutes 1997 which allows for the. Judgment Liens and Priorities in Virginia William & Mary Law.
    [Show full text]