- Americans with Disabilities Act of ,AS AMENDED with ADA Amendments Act of ;
- Peter McPossums Wiggles and Giggles.
- At Home on the Mekong: Columns from living in Cambodia.
- Naar skyggerne bliver lange.
- Court Rules Research Guide: Rules of the United States Supreme Court!
- Federal Government -- Sources [Law] [ ALSO! -- U.S. Law ].
You don't have to register to use the training site but you do have to register to use the search capability.. There is no fee or registration. Simply use the login and password provided on the training site welcome page, or use your own login information for access". Highly recommended". Copyright Law Links included are: 1. About copyright 2. How to search copyright records 3. How to register a work 4.
Law and policy 5. Publications of the U. Copyright Office. There's a link to the U. Patents and Trademarks and Office, too. American Bar Association "The ABA provides law school accreditation, continuing legal education, information about the law, programs to assist lawyers and judges in their work, and initiatives to improve the legal system for the public. Mission: To serve equally our members, our profession and the public by defending liberty and delivering justice as the national representative of the legal profession. Permission is hereby granted to any person to copy and use this material on a non-profit basis with attribution, and in particular, with the retention of links to the site of the Constitution Society or its successors on the World Wide Web.
Bollinger and Gratz v. Washington: Government Printing Office, Buffalo, New York: William S. Yale historical publications. Miscellany, 5. New Haven: Yale University Press, Hopwood v. Immigration and Nationality Acts. Congressional Research Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of the Administrator, Governement Printing Office, Congressional Budget Office, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Department of Justice, Washington: Department of Health and Human Services, International Investment Survey Act of P.
International Security Assistance Act of P. Washington: Arnold and Porter, Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of P. Washington: Bureau of National Affairs, Washington: [s. C: Federal Election Commission, Legislative Histories of the Laws Affecting the U. Government Printing Office as Codified in Department of Interior, Littleton, CO.
Legislative History of 18 U. Legislative History of Accommodations for the Judges' of the U. Court of Appeals P. Legislative History of Additional Judges for the U. Court of Claims: P. Legislative History of Amendments to Dist. Legislative History of Contract Negotiation, Sec. Legislative History of Criminal Procedure P. Legislative History of Educational Television: P. Washington: Federal Election Commission, Legislative History of H. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Federal Judicial Center, Legislative History of P.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Legislative History of Public Law 78th Cong. Legislative History of Public Law H. Legislative History of S. Legislative History of the Agricultural Act of P. Legislative History of the Agricultural Act of , P. Federal Works Agency, Legislative History of the Amendment of 13 U. Legislative History of the Antidumping Act, P. Legislative History of the Antihijacking Act of P. Legislative History of the Authorizations for the Dept. Littleton, Colo: F.
Rothman, Legislative History of the Classification Act of P. Legislative History of the Codification of Certain U. Transportation Laws as Title 49, United Legislative History of the Coinage Act of : P. Legislative History of the Communications Act of : P. New York: United Nations, Legislative History of the Creation of U. Legislative History of the Creditors Meeting : P.
Court of International Trade, Legislative History of the D. Administrative Procedure Act: P. Revenue Act of P. Bail Agency Act: P. Business Corporation Act Amendments of P. Election Act Amendments of P. Public Rental Act: P. Revenue Act of Amendments of P. Transit System Act : P. Washington D. Law June 24, Legislative History of the Drug Amendments of P. Legislative History of the Dwight D. That determination is reversed, and the case is remanded for consideration of all remaining issues.
The judgment denying permission to proceed in forma pauperis is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings. The operative agreements constituting an assumption reinsurance transaction did not provide a contractual basis for the claims for legal fees and costs. The judgment of the Commission is affirmed. Strip searches of inmates and detainees will not violate the Fourth Amendment if they are reasonable in light of institutional security interests.do.patriciorivera.com/die-auflehnung-des-miguel-c-eine-spurensuche.php
United States Code - Ballotpedia
Nor did the Court of Appeals err in concluding that there was sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for possession of drugs with intent to distribute. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and final judgment is entered upholding the conviction. The appeal in the mandamus proceeding is dismissed.
The judgment of the circuit court with respect to the stay and injunctive relief is reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The public policy of Virginia has been to uphold the validity of the marriage status as for the best interest of society, and the presumption of the validity of a marriage is one of the strongest presumptions known to the law. Nor does any provision of the Code limit solemnization only to a ceremony. Even if the courts were to infer a particular sequence for the license and solemnization requirements, a violation of that judicially implied requirement would not render the parties' marriage either void ab initio or voidable.
The marriage was valid and the circuit court, therefore, had authority to distribute the marital assets consistent with the marital agreement and to continue its adjudication of the divorce proceeding. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the matter is remanded to that court for remand to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Legal Resources: Legal Resources Websites
They serve to assist the circuit court, not to supplant it. Their work is subject to review by the circuit court, which may accept or reject it, in whole or in part. Commissioners are not lower tribunals from which appeals are taken. In this case, the circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction over the case and its decisions are reviewed, not those of the commissioner of accounts. However, it was error to grant summary judgment on the fraudulent conveyance claim on the theory that a prima facie case could not be established when the recipient is a third party creditor with a higher security interest.
In addition, the circuit court erred by applying a clear and convincing standard of proof to a claim for successor entity liability based on the mere continuation of business theory. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. For the reasons assigned in this opinion, the judgment is affirmed. The statutorily prescribed three-year term is both a mandatory minimum and a mandatory maximum sentence. Community Management Corp. She won that litigation, and then instituted the present separate action as plaintiff to recover her legal fees from that prior case, relying on a contractual provision in the confidentiality agreement on which the corporation previously sued, which allows fee recovery by a prevailing party in confidential information disputes.
The judgment dismissing the present fee action is affirmed. Yancey Lumber Corp. At the same time, the evidence shows that the modifications will not create an unreasonable burden on the defendant's servient. Thus, it cannot be said that the circuit court, by granting plaintiff the right to make these limited modifications, failed to maintain a balance in the interests of the parties, respectively, as dominant and servient landowners.
McKinley Chiropractic Ctr. Here, the patient never obtained a judgment against the insured and relinquished all existing and future rights to recover from the insurer or its insured as part of the settlement of the personal injury claim. Final judgment is entered for the insurance company.
Combined case with Record Nos. In a prosecution for making an unlawful communication with a child under this statute, the Commonwealth was not required to prove completion of taking indecent liberties. The judgment of the Court of Appeals upholding the defendant's conviction is affirmed. He was accorded due process in an evidentiary hearing and could be heard and present evidence, and he had counsel throughout. The propriety of the sentence imposed and the involuntary civil commitment order are not challenged.
The arguments that the ends of justice exception should be applied because the circuit court ignored the seriousness of his mental illness and should have committed defendant directly to inpatient hospitalization, making the imprisonment a manifest injustice, is rejected. The five-year prison sentence is for a crime committed before defendant's alleged temporary insanity, to which he pled guilty after recovering from that condition.
Statutes do not prescribe a sequence for imposition of incarceration for one offense in relation to involuntary civil commitment for different crimes committed in a later period of temporary insanity. Prisons are required to provide treatment, and defendant can also be transferred to a facility outside of the Department of Corrections if it is determined that he cannot be provided the kind of care required during incarceration.
Thus the ends of justice exception under Rule will not be applied to review the errors alleged, and the judgments of the circuit court are affirmed. The judgment is reversed and final judgment is entered on this appeal for the city. Browntown Valley Assocs. Education Assn. The judgment is reversed and the issue of any attorney fee recovery is remanded to the circuit court.
School Board v. The test is not whether a release explicitly lists a potential future claim, but whether the parties intended to release such a claim. The judgments of the circuit court are affirmed.
Pennsylvania Legal Resources Online
The judgment of the circuit court is reversed and the matter is remanded for calculation of the refund due to the taxpayer. The only factor statutorily relevant to determining the adequacy of the petitioner's reason for filing the application was the reason alleged. It cannot be discerned, without evidence, whether the alleged religious conversion is sincere.
In addition, plaintiff presented no evidence that a lack of disclosures by the defendant physician prevented her from making an informed decision with respect to the surgery on the part of her body to be operated on, or that she would not have elected to have the surgery in that location in the face of proper disclosures. Without any evidence to establish proximate causation, the informed consent claim fails as a matter of law.
The judgment is reversed and the action is remanded for retrial on the negligence claims. Plaintiff failed, at the summary judgment stage, to come forward with expert opinion establishing certain alleged improper statements made by the defendant doctor were a proximate cause of her alleged injuries in the form of aggravation of preexisting mental or physical conditions.
The complaint is dismissed. Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court is reversed and the gas utility's petition for declaratory judgment is dismissed. Office of Exec. The judgment of the circuit court denying enforcement of an FOIA request directed to the Office of the Executive Secretary is affirmed.
Nor did the court err in excluding from evidence certain tax assessment records offered as proof of the value of the decedent's home, or in striking the plaintiff's evidence on a claim for civil conspiracy. Because an award of attorney's fees to the defendant daughter was based on the ruling in her favor on her motion to strike, that award is vacated.
The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed in part and reversed in part. This matter is remanded for a new trial consistent with this opinion. On the issue of self-defense in determining who was the aggressor or what was the reasonable apprehension of the defendant for his safety, the issue is what the victim probably did, and such evidence is admissible even when the defendant is unaware of it. Here, however, assuming without deciding that exclusion of certain alleged threats made by the victim against the defendant should have been admitted, such error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence.
Where an accused adduces evidence that he acted in self-defense, evidence of specific acts is admissible to show the character of the decedent for turbulence and violence, even if the accused is unaware of such character, but here the trial court did not err in allowing recent episodes while excluding more temporally remote acts of the victim.
Failure to make a timely proffer of conflicting testimony or to make a timely motion for mistrial concerning a comment made by the prosecutor in closing argument foreclose consideration of these matters on appeal. The original complaint sounded wholly in tort and did not state a prima facie cause of action for inverse condemnation. The judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the action is remanded for further proceedings in light of this opinion. To preserve judicial resources and protect unwitting defendants, this habitual filing of meritless appeals is now addressed.
Factors considered include a history of 1 filing duplicative, vexatious lawsuits, 2 without any objective good faith basis, and 3 at the expense of the court system and opposing parties. Exercising its inherent power to protect against repetitious and harassing conduct that abuses the judicial process, and to prevent continued filing of frivolous petitions for appeal, this litigant shall be prohibited from filing any petition for appeal, motion, pleading, or other filing without 1 obtaining the services of a practicing Virginia attorney, whose filings would be subject to Code 8.
The Clerk is instructed to comply with this order as it pertains to future filings. In a circumstantial case, the Commonwealth must overcome the presumption of innocence and exclude all reasonable conclusions inconsistent with guilt, which requires an unbroken evidentiary chain of necessary circumstances showing that both the corpus delicti and the criminal agency of the accused have been proved to the exclusion of any other rational hypothesis and to a moral certainty. Here, the totality of the evidence was sufficient for a rational factfinder to reject the defendant's hypothesis that someone else was the criminal agent who placed stolen items in a vehicle linked to him by documentary and testimonial evidence.
As the prevailing party below, the Commonwealth is entitled to the benefit of all reasonable inferences that flow from the evidence. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and final judgment reinstating the convictions is entered on this appeal. While the intent instruction could have been amended to include reference to the defendant's "acts, conduct and statements," where other instructions fully and fairly cover the principles of law governing the case, the trial court does not err in refusing an additional instruction language on the same subject.
In light of the separate instruction regarding jury consideration of the defendant's statements, the instructions, taken as a whole, stated the law clearly and covered all issues fairly raised by the evidence. In this case, the conviction order and the sentencing order were entered in and neither was modified, vacated or suspended within 21 days after their entry. Accordingly, they became final and the trial court lost jurisdiction to modify the conviction in this case. An oral understanding of the trial court, prosecutor, and defense counsel not embodied in a plea agreement or an order suspending, modifying or vacating the conviction and sentencing orders did not afford jurisdiction to the trial court to enter the relief sought long after the orders were entered.
Neither the entry of orders nunc pro tunc nor the doctrine of orders void ab initio applies here. The judgment of the Court of Appeals upholding the circuit court's disposition is affirmed. Signature on the memoranda by a vice president of the company on the claimant line, crossing out the agent option, did not cause the trustee any prejudice and it was sufficient to fulfill the purposes of the statute.
The judgment of the circuit court upholding the liens is affirmed. The record in the case confirms beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational factfinder would have found the defendant guilty absent the claimed error, in light of the limited role that the challenged evidence played at trial, coupled with the overwhelming and unchallenged evidence of defendant's guilt. Thus, applying the standard for review of alleged constitutional errors, the claimed error of trial court was harmless as a matter of law, and the contrary holding of the Court of Appeals is reversed. Defendant's conviction for possession of heroin with the intent to distribute, third or subsequent offense, is reinstated.
There is no time requirement for entry of an order recording the return of an indictment in open court. The Code of Virginia evinces a clear legislative policy that the requirement of an indictment in the prosecution for a felony may be waived, and hence is not jurisdictional. Thus, failure of the record to show affirmatively that the indictment was returned into court by the grand jury is not such a defect as will render null and void the judgment of conviction based thereon.
U.S. Federal Legislative History Library
Defendant was subject to the requirement of Rule 3A:9 b 1 and c to challenge the indictment at least seven days before his trial, which he concedes he did not do. Because he did not argue that there was good cause to excuse this failure as provided in Rule 3A:9 d , he waived the right to object to the indictment. The present complaint failed to state a cognizable claim, and the circuit court did not err in sustaining the insurer's demurrer.
The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and this case is remanded for trial. Sea Oats Condo. Nor is it necessary for a party to provide advance notice of the amount of fees it will seek if successful. This statute makes no distinction between compensated and uncompensated sureties, and the right to reimbursement is expressly available to any person liable as a guarantor. Here, if plaintiff made any gift at all it was in his decision to act as an accommodation surety rather than a compensated surety.
The facts here triggered a right to reimbursement under this section, with interest from the time of payment, and five percent damages on such amount, and he is entitled to judgment. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for determination of the amount which is due to the plaintiff under the statute. Nor did the court abuse its discretion in refusing the defendant's proffered jury instruction on carjacking, in light of a model instruction the trial court granted, which fully and accurately covered the carjacking offense.
The convictions are affirmed. Thus, it was an abuse of discretion to permit this testimony. However, the defendant doctor's own testimony regarding the circumstances that impacted or would have impacted his decision to perform surgery was not expert opinion but, instead, factual testimony, and its admission was not an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the defendant's own testimony.
The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial. Here, the demarcation of a road as an easement on the plat incorporated into the declaration was sufficient to fulfill the designation requirement for a common area, and the terms of the declaration expressly impose upon the architectural control committee a duty to maintain the road and authorize it to impose assessments for the costs of such maintenance. Consequently, both the declaration and the committee fulfill the qualifications imposed by the Act. The judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the action is remanded.
A general restriction on public access is sufficient to rebut the presumption of public access, and once the area has been shown to be restricted, this includes the roads found therein. Thus, the implied consent statute had no applicability and he was not required to submit a breath sample. Because the plaintiffs failed to allege an actual controversy sufficient to bring a declaratory judgment action, the trial court did not err in finding that none of the plaintiffs have standing, and they likewise may not recover the injunctive relief requested therein.
The judgment of the circuit court dismissing the action is affirmed. Erie Ins. The judgment is reversed and final judgment is entered. The circuit court in this case correctly found that the three-year limitation period barred malpractice claims against the first attorney because his work on the particular undertaking at issue had ceased more than three years before plaintiff filed the present malpractice action. It erred in regard to the second defendant, however, since he continued to render services with respect to the undertaking involved until four days after the date a judgment order was actually entered, and the present action was filed three years to the day after that judgment was entered.
The judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. CSX Transportation, Inc. Here, the amended complaint was sufficient to state facts necessary for application of the last clear chance doctrine, and the fact that the negligence of the decedent in this case continued up to the point of the accident, without more, does not bar the application of the last clear chance doctrine.
That portion of the circuit court's decision finding that the cable service provider was not entitled to recover refunds of taxes for two of the years for failure timely to appeal the decision of the local commissioner of revenue is reversed because that argument was not preserved in arguments before the Tax Commissioner, and thus could not be raised in an appeal thereafter to the circuit court. The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the matter is remanded for completion of the refunds.
In this case, the judgment of the circuit court, which dismissed a petition for writ of certiorari for failure to name the local governing body in the petition and denied the petitioner leave to amend after the day period had expired, is affirmed. This case presents genuine issues of disputed material facts over whether the defendant breached the provisions of the easement thus precluding an award of partial summary judgment.
On the record presented, the disputes center on questions involving the condition of an identified trail area before the defendant conducted what is described as buffer work, the specific nature of the work that the defendant performed in that area, and the use that could be made of the trail after the work was completed.
Only after both sides are allowed to fully and fairly present their evidence to a factfinder can those issues be resolved through the application of the plain language of the easement as here construed. The judgment of the circuit court granting partial summary judgment to the plaintiff is reversed, and this action is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
In this case, the plaintiff's wrongful discharge claim was based on alleged retaliation against her for exercise of her statutory right to obtain a protective order against threats of violence by a co-worker, but she did not allege that her termination itself violated the public policy stated in the protective order statutes by somehow endangering her health and safety. No generalized cause of action for the tort of retaliatory discharge has been recognized in Virginia.
There is no public policy violated by the termination of plaintiff's at-will employment and thus she has failed to state a claim under this theory. The judgment dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice is affirmed. United Land Corp. The judgment dismissing the action on statute of limitations grounds is affirmed. The trial court correctly applied Rule , which prohibited plaintiffs from filing two separate lawsuits when one would have been perfectly sufficient.
Because plaintiffs could have joined all three of its claims in a single suit and no qualifying principle of res judicata applies, Rule prohibited them from filing a second suit after losing its first suit on the merits. The judgment dismissing the case on res judicata grounds is affirmed. Since she lacked standing to bring this claim herself, the circuit court did not err in denying leave to amend the complaint to name the bankruptcy trustee as the plaintiff, or to substitute the trustee for the named plaintiff.
The judgment of the circuit court dismissing the action with prejudice is affirmed. Jardines, U. Since the only fact relevant to the retroactivity determination was the date on which the petitioner's conviction became final, which was in the record and uncontested, the habeas court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the pure question of law presented by this habeas claim could be resolved solely on the recorded matters and a plenary hearing was unnecessary. The judgment denying a writ of habeas corpus is affirmed.
In Virginia, a Miller violation can be addressed on direct review or in a habeas proceeding. Because the violation, if proven, does not render the sentence void ab initio but merely voidable, it cannot be addressed by a motion to vacate filed years after the sentence became final. The judgment of the circuit court for the plaintiff on a battery theory of liability is reversed. The instructions given reinforced the Commonwealth's burden of proving each element beyond a reasonable doubt, and did not state that willful concealment alone satisfied the burden of proof as to the element of intent.
The instruction used in this case merely created a permissible inference that the jury was free to reject, not a mandatory presumption and, accordingly, the trial court did not err in giving it to the jury. On the whole, the instructions given by the trial court, including the finding instruction, fully and fairly covered the inferences permitted from evidence presented of willful concealment.
Nor did the trial court err in excluding a racially charged statement made by the defendant at the scene of the vehicle accident. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Nor was there any error in the trial court's refusal of a proffered jury instruction on the topic of eyewitness identification. While the defendant tendered an instruction relating to eyewitness identification testimony that was a correct statement of the law, other instructions granted in this case were sufficient to inform the jury that it could consider the reliability of the identification of the defendant, and factors noted by the defendant reflect common sense considerations.
This decision does not foreclose the use of an appropriate eyewitness identification instruction in a future case, however. There is no reversible error in the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the convictions, and it is affirmed. Here, the county did not establish an ordinance as required by subsection B. Consequently, it may not rely on subsection I of that statute as a basis to tax the TDRs at issue.
While, upon request, the Commonwealth is required to provide indigent defendants with the basic tools of an adequate defense, the constitutional right to the appointment of an expert, at the Commonwealth's expense, is not absolute and an indigent defendant who seeks such an appointment must demonstrate that the assistance of an expert is likely to be a significant factor in the defense, and that the defendant will be prejudiced by the lack of such assistance.
Thus, it cannot be said that a particularized need for the assistance of a neuropsychologist was demonstrated. Market conditions can reduce the value of machinery and tools, and the fact that for a portion of the year the refinery was idled due to adverse market conditions was a relevant consideration in assessing fair market value, but the refinery did not carry its burden of proving that the refinery was overvalued as of January 1 of each of the contested years. Finally, the county did not assume inconsistent positions in successive litigations, and there was no fatal inconsistency in its appraisals.
Thus, the statutory scheme governing habeas corpus jurisdiction does not prohibit the court where the present habeas corpus application has been made from hearing this petition. The Court of Appeals correctly determined that the circuit court had sufficient evidence before it to establish both the causation and criminal negligence elements of the crime, and its judgment is affirmed. The trial court found as fact that the ring was given as a conditional gift in contemplation of marriage. The marriage did not occur. Consequently, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
In the single-trial setting, the role of the constitutional guarantee is limited to assuring that the court does not exceed its legislative authorization by imposing multiple punishments for the same offense. The intent of the legislature is controlling, and it may determine the appropriate unit of prosecution and set the penalty for separate violations. For the reasons explained by the Court of Appeals in its published opinion, 65 Va. In this case, the trial court correctly held that principles of sovereign immunity barred a suit plaintiff filed pursuant to that Act against the Virginia Department of State Police, an arm of the Commonwealth.
The judgment dismissing the suit is affirmed. It also authorized the designation of a new beneficiary for his individual retirement account. The award of attorney's fees is reversed and the judgment is, in all other respects, affirmed. In addition, when indemnification is dependent on performance, a cause of action for failure to indemnify accrues at breach of performance. Here, while plaintiff claimed no damages until , some injury or damage, however slight, is sufficient for a cause of action to accrue, and it is immaterial that all the resulting damages did not occur at the time of the injury.
Because any breach by the subcontractors occurred at that time, the statute of limitations has similarly run against the sureties. The judgment of the circuit court dismissing the actions is affirmed. The fact that an appellate court had jurisdiction based on a notice of appeal that was filed protectively, does not necessarily divest the trial court of all jurisdiction to act on certain matters.
Although the Court of Appeals did not address the merits of the motion to withdraw the guilty plea, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the motion on the alternative basis that the defendant had failed to prove manifest injustice, a ruling that was fully supported by evidence in the record.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed as right for the wrong reason. In an attempt to defuse the situation and protect himself and his family, defendant retrieved his own gun from another room. When the defendant returned, the victim pointed his gun at defendant who, fearing for his life, shot the victim. These facts support the defendant's claim that he shot the victim in self-defense. The proposed witnesses would have provided both direct probative evidence on the issues, and proof corroborative of the testimony of the expert witness.
The error was not harmless in this case, and the matter is reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Services v. While the parties' agreement provided for different caps in separate subsections, the plain language does not contemplate that more than one of these caps would be applicable where, as here, the damages of the party entitled to indemnity all result from the same conduct.
The circuit court erred in not limiting the defendants' liability to indemnify the purchaser to damages that escrow cap. A purchaser must look to the title papers under which he buys, and is charged with notice of all the facts appearing upon their face, or to the knowledge of which anything there appearing will conduct him.
A person with notice, actual or constructive, of a defect in his title is not entitled, upon being dispossessed by the rightful owner, to recover compensation for permanent improvements made on the premises, and these principles are applicable on the present facts. Based upon long-standing common law principles, the judgment of the circuit court is reversed. The evidence failed to prove that certain zero balance credits created liability on the garnishee bank to the judgment debtor.
When these balance credits are removed, the sum of the outside deposits is the amount subject to garnishment, and this matter is remanded for determination of these outside deposits to the account, payable to the judgment creditor. Under governing constitutional case law, this statute does not support a public policy Bowman claim for wrongful termination in this case.
The provision is unconstitutional as applied to private consensual sexual activity between adults, and can no longer provide the basis for a valid allegation of wrongful termination whether the employee accedes to the demands or is terminated for refusing the demand. Plaintiff has not alleged any facts to show that she was asked to engage in any public sexual activity. The circuit court did not err in finding that no reasonable jurist could find that the peer leader did nothing at all for the decedent's care, and thus there was no question for the jury, and the circuit court properly granted the defense motion for summary judgment.
The judgment of the circuit court against the plaintiff successor landowner is affirmed. Failure to obtain a warrant was not necessary in light of the vehicular exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, because the special district tax is not subject to the partial exemption, the trial court was correct, albeit for the wrong reason, in ruling that the special district tax is not a real estate tax within the meaning and for the purposes of the partial exemption.
Its judgment is therefore affirmed via application of the right result for the wrong reason doctrine. Accordingly, the portion of the April 14, order holding the senators and the Division in contempt is vacated. The portions of the February 16, order that are inconsistent with this opinion are likewise vacated, and the case will be remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The judgment for plaintiff is reversed and final judgment is entered for the defense.
A trial judge has the power to correct a written statement at any time while it remains in the office of the clerk after notifying counsel and providing an opportunity for a hearing. Thus, as long as a proposed written statement of facts was timely filed and the notice and hearing requirements are satisfied, this correction power allows a trial court to enter a revised version of a timely filed statement of facts. In this case, the statement of facts signed by the circuit court judge was timely filed in the circuit court and complied with the requirements of Rule 5A:8, and was properly part of the record as an authoritative account of the events that occurred at trial in lieu of a transcript.
The Court of Appeals erred by ruling that there was no such statement of facts in the record for its consideration. The award of punitive damages is reversed in this case, the judgment is affirmed in part, and final judgment is entered for the plaintiff on the remainder of the circuit court's award. A two-year convalescence period is available to injured service members in applying for reinstatement to a former civilian position.
However, Sections and of the Act afford returning service members protection only during the act of rehiring. Because there is no dispute in this case that the defendant Sheriff promptly rehired the plaintiff as a deputy upon her return from military deployment, the circuit court properly granted summary judgment to the Sheriff. Title 38 U. No claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act is involved in this appeal. The judgment dismissing claims against the defendant Sheriff is affirmed. The petitioner had no federal constitutional right to counsel in his probation revocation hearing and, under United States Supreme Court case law, he could not meet the requirements of review regarding a due process right to counsel because he admitted violating his probation by committing new crimes and did not otherwise contest revocation, and he did not present any circumstances mitigating or justifying the violation.
Thus, his probation revocation hearing was not one in which fundamental fairness gave rise to a due process constitutional right to counsel. Therefore, petitioner could not have been denied the effective assistance of that counsel. Because the habeas court erred in ruling otherwise, the judgment granting the petitioner a delayed appeal is reversed. Therefore, the decision of the Commission is affirmed. Nor is the record sufficient to convict the defendant of this offense as a principal in the second degree.