pleadings is the complaints‚ the answer‚ the cross-complaint‚ and the reply. All lawsuits start with a complaint. The answer must be filed by the defendant. In some cases‚ the defendant can file a cross-complain‚ or countersuit‚ against the plaintiff. The plaintiff must then file a reply. During discovery‚ both sides find the facts to defend their cases. When these steps are complete‚ the trial is ready to be heard. During the trial‚ juries are selected‚ opening statements are made‚ and both sides present
Premium Dispute resolution Pleading Mediation
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS JUSTIN WILLIAM KING‚ ) ) Plaintiff. ) ) ) v. ) ) ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES‚ INC. ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) COMPLAINT Comes Now the plaintiff‚ Justin King‚ by and through his attorney‚ states as follows: PARTIES AND JURISDICTION 1. Plaintiff‚ for all times mentioned herein‚ was and is a resident of Cook County‚ State of Illinois. 2. Defendant
Premium Jury Jurisdiction Law
be fulfilled is the effect of the plaintiff where the plaintiff must feel reasonable apprehension of immediate harm that a force will be inflicted upon him or her. In this issue‚ the act committed by the defendant has resulted in reasonable apprehension of immediate harm to the plaintiff where the plaintiff has shouted for help because of the fear she faced when she was threatened by the defendant with a gun. It is considered as an assault because the plaintiff is aware of the threat of harm happened
Premium Legal terms Violence Assault
contend that the statute of limitations has run and bars any and all claims. Plaintiff contends that the statute of limitations has not run due to misnomer and misidentification that the statute of limitations is tolled and does not apply as any amended petition relates back to the date of the original petition. Defendant
Premium Civil procedure Complaint Plaintiff
I. Introduction and Standard for Opposition to Summary Judgment Crowell Academy‚ Inc. and Arturo Gomez‚ (hereinafter‚ collectively "Crowell") were grossly negligent and used willful misconduct in their responsibilities involving the fencing club. The bargaining power of Crowell was so grossly unequal so as to put Lajuana Barnett at the mercy of Crowell’s negligence. Lastly‚ the exculpatory clause contained in the release form (see release form) is void as against public policy. Consequently
Premium Legal terms Judgment Public policy
controversy exceeds $5‚000‚000 and either 1. any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant; 2. any member of a class of plaintiffs is a foreign state or a citizen or subject of a foreign state and any defendant is a citizen of a State; or 3. any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State and any defendant is a foreign state or a citizen or subject of a foreign state.[1] Nationwide plaintiff classes are possible‚ but such suits must have a commonality
Premium Class action Plaintiff
07-22-09 Tarasoff v. Regents 17 Cal 3d 425 Facts: On October 27‚ 1969‚ Prosenjit Poddar killed Tatiana Tarasoff. Plaintiffs‚ Tatiana’s parents‚ allege that two months earlier Poddar confided his intention to kill Tatiana to Dr. Lawrence Moore‚ a psychologist employed by the Cowell Memorial Hospital at the University of California at Berkeley. They allege that on Moore’s request‚ the campus police briefly detained Poddar‚ but released him when he appeared rational. They further claim that Dr.
Premium Law Legal terms Pleading
can be illustrated in the case of Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877) 2 App Cas 666. In this case‚ the defendants had for some years supplied the plaintiffs with coals. It was suggested by the defendants that a contract should be entered into between them. After their agents had met‚ the terms of the agreement were drawn up by the plaintiffs ’ agent and sent to the defendants. The head of the defendants ’ firm filled up certain parts of the agreement which had been left blank‚ inserted the name
Premium Contract Plaintiff
procured from the deceased without consideration by the fraudulent practices of the defendants and their undue influence over the deceased‚ who was known to be a habitual drunkard for more than five years before the execution of the deed. ISSUE: The plaintiff was not required to make any payments on account of an alleged bill against the grantor‚ or for moneys alleged to have been advanced to him subsequently to the alleged transaction‚ where these matters cannot be regarded as connected with the transaction
Premium Appeal Jury Contract
improper accounting for loading discounts‚ shipping to the yard‚ and guaranteed sales. The plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit filed against Campbell Soup Company and its top executives eventually added Pricewaterhouse (PwC)‚ Campbell’s independent auditor‚ as a defendant in the case. To allow a lawsuit filed under the 1934 Security Act to proceed against a defendant‚ a federal judge must find that the plaintiffs have alleged or “pleaded” facts “to support a strong inference of scienter” on the
Premium Audit Plaintiff Big Four auditors