The slip and fall lawsuit funding are not ‘loans’ but ‘cash advances’ that are given to the victims of the accident to cover the expenses towards his/her medical bills, hospital visits, loss of employment, house rent, and other living expenses. Personal injury lawsuit involving slip and fall can carry on for long time and victims of such accident can not wait for till the settlement of the case to get compensation. But it is necessary for the victim to be a plaintiff in the slip and fall accident lawsuit to get slip and fall accident funding. The attorney of the victim can then try to negotiate with the third party that will be providing the lawsuit funding.
Accidents occur at any places then it may be on roads, offices, factories, industries, or even at home. Many people suffer from slip and fall accidents at homes every year. The injuries due to such accidents can be minor or even fatal for elderly people. It is quite possible that slip and fall injuries can highly impact the victim and cause him/her to remain absent from work, pay hefty medical bills, and visits to hospital. The injuries can render the victim unable to meet the hefty medical and health expenses. In such cases, the victims must consider going for slip and fall lawsuit funding. The victims must also consider filing for a lawsuit against the property owner or manager to get suitable compensation.
The slip and fall lawsuit funding are not ‘loans’ but ‘cash advances’ that are given to the victims of the accident to cover the expenses towards his/her medical bills, hospital visits, loss of employment, house rent, and other living expenses. Personal injury lawsuit involving slip and fall can carry on for long time and victims of such accident can not wait for till the settlement of the case to get compensation. But it is necessary for the victim to be a plaintiff in the slip and fall accident lawsuit to get slip and fall accident funding. The attorney of the victim can then try to negotiate with the third party that will be providing the lawsuit funding.
0 Comments
Accused of harassing three internal affairs officers for pointing out problems, city leaders responded by criticizing the officers’ actions and motives.
“Plaintiffs, for their own personal agendas, have sought to undermine the duly appointed police chief and Nampa Police Department leadership,” the city’s answer to the officers’ federal lawsuit states. “Thereafter, plaintiffs made baseless allegations, ignored Police Department policies, and took their complaints outside the normal chain of command. “It is specifically and adamantly denied that plaintiffs’ allegations were ignored.” Nampa Mayor Tom Dale and Police Chief Bill Augsburger filed the document Friday in response to a lawsuit filed Sept. 29 by Lt. Joe Huff, Sgt. Curtis Shankel, investigator Leonard Claunts and Claunts’ wife, Ginger. The longtime officers say they reported policy violations and misuse of city funds to Augsburger — and ultimately to the mayor — resulting in little or no discipline. Instead, they said, the department launched “a campaign of retaliatory harassment.” In its response, the city denies retaliation and contends Augsburger didn’t ignore allegations about other officers. Instead, the response states, Augsburger took disciplinary actions he deemed appropriate and the plaintiffs disagreed with those decisions. Among the misconduct the plaintiffs say they reported, to no avail, were one officer’s use of excessive force and an officer repeatedly showing up for work under the influence of alcohol. read full story at www.idahostatesman.com Almost five years after Florida A&M pharmacy school graduate Shannon McCants was shot to death while working at Shands Jacksonville Medical Center, a Duval County jury on Friday said the hospital and its private security firm should pay her family nearly $6 million in damages.
McCants' husband Derrick McCants, also a FAMU graduate, sued the hospital's security firm Wackenhut Corp., for negligence in the death of the pregnant 37-year-old pharmacy supervisor and mother of two young children. The jury found the hospital was 75 percent liable for her death and Wackenhut was 25 percent responsible. The McCants are to receive about $1.5 million from the security firm. read full story at : http://www.tallahassee.com Milk: good for your bones (and possibly your heart), bad for your wallet. As milk prices have crept up over the last few years, many have simply blamed “the economy.” But, a lawsuit being filed by a non-profit animal advocacy group claims, there may be something more sinister behind the price tag, including the systematic killing of dairy cows.
The animal rights’ group Compassion Over Killing (who has, let’s just say it, one of the least fortunate acronyms) has, with the help of a Seattle law firm, filed a lawsuit which alleges that members of one dairy farmers’ cooperative have engaged in a violation of anti-trust laws (as well as animals’ rights), by allegedly killing dairy cows to decrease supply and artificially inflate the price of milk. The suit targets Cooperatives Working Together, a program designed to help dairy farmers “strengthen and stabilize milk prices”, who have come under fire after COK allegedly uncovered documents, which they say has revealed the practice of “dairy herd retirement”, in which farmers “retired” (read: killed) healthy cows. And, according to the suit, the practice wasn’t just being used by a few farms. Funding for the cooperative comes from large organizations, such as Dairy Farmers of America–and members of the CWT produce more than 70% of the nation’s milk. Read full article at : http://blisstree.com When a final judgment is entered, the plaintiff is usually barred under the doctrine of res judicata from trying to bring the same or similar claim again against that defendant, or from relitigating any of the issues, even under different legal claims or theories. This prevents a new trial of the same case with a different result, or if the plaintiff won, a repeat trial that merely multiplies the judgment against the defendant.
If the judgment is for the plaintiff, then the defendant must comply under penalty of law with the judgment, which will usually be a monetary award. If the defendant fails to pay, the court has various powers to seize any of the defendant's assets located within its jurisdiction, such as: If all assets are located elsewhere, the plaintiff must file another suit in the appropriate court to seek enforcement of the other court's previous judgment. This can be a difficult task when crossing from a court in one state or nation to another, though courts tend to grant each other respect when there is not a clear legal rule to the contrary. A defendant who has no assets in any jurisdiction is said to be "judgment-proof." The term is generally a colloquialism to describe an impecunious defendant. Indigent judgment-proof defendants are no longer imprisoned; debtor's prisons have been outlawed by statute, constitutional amendment, or international human rights treaties in the vast majority of common law jurisdictions. Article Source: Wikipedia.org |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Categories
All
|