Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The plaintiff's original pleading is called a complaint. The defendant's original pleading is called an answer. Rule 8(a) sets out the plaintiff's requirements for a claim: a "short and plain statement" of jurisdiction, a "short and plain statement" of the claim, and a demand for judgment. It also allows relief in the alternative, so the ...
Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that determined a U.S. state violated due process by involuntarily committing a criminal defendant for an indefinite period of time solely on the basis of his permanent incompetency to stand trial on the charges filed against him.
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), was a United States Supreme Court case in which a court-appointed attorney filed a motion to withdraw from the appeal of a criminal case because of his belief that any grounds for appeal were frivolous.
The defendants have limited time to respond, depending on the State or Federal rules. A defendant's failure to answer a complaint can result in a default judgment in favor of the petitioner. For example, in United States federal courts, any person who is at least 18 years old and not a party may serve a summons and complaint in a civil case. [5]
The State also argued that allowing criminal defendants any remedy would "open the floodgates to litigation by defendants seeking to unsettle their convictions". [ 14 ] [ 17 ] [ 18 ] Cooper argued that allowing the defendant to accept the plea agreement was the appropriate remedy, putting the defendant in the same position as if counsel had not ...
Donald Trump's former co-defendants are asking the judge who tossed his classified documents case to issue an emergency order blocking the public release of special counsel Jack Smith's final ...
Sample clearance fees prohibited the use of more than one or two samples for most recordings, with some mechanical rights holders demanding up to 100% of royalties. As each sample had to be cleared to avoid legal action, records such as those produced by the Bomb Squad for Public Enemy , which use dozens of samples, became prohibitively ...
People v. Clayton, 41 A.D.2d 204, 208 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1973) was a case before the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division.It determined that a trial court, when considering a "motion to dismiss in the interest of justice" [1] (subsequently known as a "Clayton motion"), must convene an evidentiary hearing to consider whether the dismissal would in fact be in the "interest of ...