Michael suggests that his testimony and the information proffered by his attorney indicating that he had been unable to hold down a steady job and make the restitution payments was sufficient to “raise the issue of his inability to pay.” Beyond the verbal assertions of Michael and his attorney, however, there was no evidence or arguments in the record recounting Michael’s efforts to get a job.Read More »
Davis contends that the trial court committed various errors, by refusing to instruct the jury on the mitigating defense of provocation, by admitting certain lay opinion testimony, and by refusing to enter a judgment of acquittal as to certain counts.Read More »
Forkwar’s only claim of fraud was the alleged perjury of the J&J president that Mahdi was not working for J&J at the time of the accident, and that this claim is intrinsic fraud that does not permit the reopening of the judgment. Progressive contends that there is nothing close to extrinsic fraud in this case, such as an attempt to keep Forkwar or his counsel from investigating the facts of the case, and that Forkwar could have at least attempted to depose Mahdi to obtain evidence that he was operating the vehicle on behalf of J&J.Read More »
Convicted of armed robbery, appellant asks: 1. Did the trial court err in improperly admitting prejudicial other crimes/bad acts evidence? 2. Did the trial court err in allowing the improper rehabilitation and/or bolstering of testimony? 3. Did the trial court err in sentencing appellant?Read More »
I. Did the circuit court err in granting summary judgment in favor of the Association on counts two, three, and four on the grounds that the Henrys failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and that the business judgment rule applied to preclude the claims asserted? II. Did the circuit court err in granting summary judgment in favor of the Association on counts two, three, and four on the ground of res judicata?Read More »
Frederick White, personal representative of the estate of Marianne Ross, et al. v. Curt M. Watkins, et al.
1. Did the trial court err in applying the Frye-Reed standard to the medical causation opinions of appellants’ experts, Dr. Grendell and Dr. Sheikh? 2. Did the trial court err in excluding the medical causation opinions of appellants’ experts, Dr. Grendell and Dr. Sheikh, on the grounds that such opinions lacked a sufficient factual basis under the Frye-Reed standard?Read More »