I need to know who the plaintiff was, who the defendent was, and what was the final ruling.  Thanx!
127692
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/07/sebok.bryant/
523255
The person who filed the Small Claims Court complaint either:\n\n1.  Failed to show up at the hearing also; or\n2.  Showed up in Court, and the Judge did not believe the evidence provided to support the complaint.\n\nSo, lucky for you, the Judge DISMISSED the case.  However, he dismissed the case without precluding the plaintiff from re-filing the complaint (i.e. without prejudice to his right to file a new complaint against you).  This means that IF the plaintiff wants to, the plaintiff can re-file the complaint against you - and you will have to respond.\n\nIf the Judge had dismissed "WITH prejudice," the plaintiff would not be able to re-file the complaint against you.  (If you are served with a new complaint,  DO NOT MISS THE HEARING!  You were lucky this time: do not tempt fate.)
390440
God points.  Get some more evidence.  If the judge can be convinced that she is a liar it will hurt her case and help yours. So far you are not convincing. What is her evidence?
412167
try www.findlaw.com     \nzabasearch\ngood luck!
623703
Highly dobut this.  First off there is no judge named, and the governments attorney is only refered to as DOJ attorney which is not even the correct method of talking about them.  Next you have the fact that this case would have made US headlines.  There's nothing about this case I can find anywhere.  Next you also have the fact that it states there is no law allowing taxes to be collected.  There is numerous laws on this, that despite many challenges have been upheld.\n\nAll in all this isn't even a question and obivously lacks any type of source to make it appear real
548765
If the suit was actually filed, you can go to the court and have a search done with her as the named Plaintiff.  Actions are normally filed in the county where the Plaintiff resides, where the even occurred or where the Defendant resides or does business, depending on your states rules of civil procedure.\n\nThe filing will tell you the name of the lawyer who represented her.\n\nSince 3 1/2 years have passed, he probably had himself removed because he couldn't get in touch with her.  You should still contact him though just in case he didn't.
526792
Where you the one who sent in the papers? if so... then you should have gotten a reciept #. Something like EAC - ## - ### - #####. It should be something similar to this. If you did then go to the www.uscis.gov and scroll down. On the right hand side at the very bottom you will see... "enter case #." You can track info through this. If you have any question... please feel free to ask me.
204905
Yes.\n\nRemember that piece of paper that said\nPeople of the State of _________ (Plaintiff)\nv.\nYOU (Defendant)\n\n(may have been City of or Village of or whatever)\n\nyou probably pled guilty in agreement that this owuld be the sentence.
294645
Your county law library -- the librarian can help you.  If you don't have a county law library, by some chance; call some law firms -- they often maintain libraries.\n\nIf you need help determining what book to look in, where -- e-mail me.  If I have time to look online, I will & will edit this or e-mail you.\n\n[EDIT]  I did a relatively quick search and found these:\n\nHustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988).  This case can be found (word for word) at:\nhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=485&invol=46\n\nIn it, you will find a lot of cases that were relied on to support this decision, so look for the cases cites.  (U.S. = Supreme Court cases; F. or F. Supp., = Federal (district) cases.) \n\nI forget exactly what's at this site.  I think it's another case, with case law cited also:  http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/Courses/tortsF01/IIEM.htm\n\nThere is general info at  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_infliction_of_emotional_distress  \n\nPut IIED (abbreviated and/or spelled out, in quotes) in the search box at www.findlaw.com -- you might find some cases.\n\nI'll let you know if I find anything else.\n\n[EDIT]  This site has to do with bullying in the workplace.  9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  \nhttp://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20050920.html\n\n[EDIT]  If you find a U.S. Case you want to read, go to this page.  I believe you can pull up the case (word for word) by clicking on the appropriate link (on this page) and then the name/cite of the case.  \nhttp://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/casefinder.html\n\n\n\n[EDIT]  I found more for you.  Amongst websites (below) that you may be interested in, there are Cases cited.  The cases cited all have Federal cases (cited) within them, so look at the body of the decisions for more case law.  The case I've cited may not be (exactly) what you want, but cases within them may be.\n\nThe U.S. Legal Landscape: Evolving Towards Protecting Employees Against Bullying At Work; Possible Theories Of Employer Liability: How Employers Could Be On The Hook \nThe Hostile Working Environment Harassment Theory:  EEOC v. National Education Association Alaska, 422 F. 3d 840 (9th Cir. 2005) at\nhttp://www.lorman.com/seminars/teleconference.php?product_id=152654&topic=LB\n\n\nThis is an excellent site for info (perhaps).  The case I've cited below com from it: http://www.bullyinginstitute.org/studies.html\n\nTwo US Supreme Court summer 1998 decisions that made employers responsible ("vicarious liability") for harassment and discrimination by management who act as "agents" of employers:\n\n(1)  Burlington Industries vs. Ellerth,  123 F.3d 490 (1998), affirmed.  This decision fixes "vicarious liability" for illegal harassment on the employer. Supervisors are agents of the employer.    http://www.bullyinginstitute.org/bbstudies/ellerth.html \n\n(2)  Faragher vs. City of Boca Raton, 111 F. 3d 1530 (1998), reversed and remanded.  This decision assigns liability for illegal harassment to the employer whether or not the employer was aware of its occurrence.  http://www.bullyinginstitute.org/bbstudies/faragher.html\n\nAlso:  http://www.bullyinginstitute.org/bbstudies/eeocnea.html   This case illustrates an alternative motivational theory in which an abusive bully takes advantage of a traditionally female workplace because he is more comfortable when bullying women than when bullying men.   CHRISTOPHER v. NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION.  [This may be the same case I cited above, or related to, 422 F. 3d 840 (9th Cir. 2005).  Read the entire Ruling (in .pdf format) -- a lot of federal cases cited.]
447874
Ask the clerk of court of the Ramsey County and it is the only way.  What happened in the court cannot be divulged online.
116618
try this\nhttp://library.findlaw.com/
201608
First, try the 4th Circuit website. If not there, try findlaw.com. They usually have most cases there.  Good luck.
260480
By 'wrongfully named' do you mean that someone else probably did those things, but they sent the papers to you by mistake?\n\nOr do you mean that you don't agree that what you did was actually those things?\n\nIn either situation, if you have been served, you should get a lawyer to file a response. Failure to respond can be grounds for default.\n\nIf you don't think you are the correct person being named, because someone else did the actions being identified, then have your lawyer tell that to the court. Odds are, if you are correct and you really weren't involved, the court will allow you to prove that fairly easily.\n\nCounter-suing (a cross-complaint is only between two defendants) if you are not actually involved will only drag out the legal action, and cost you lots of money. Further, ask your lawyer about the concept of judicial immunity and litigation privilege with regard to defamation. Basically, most states do not allow the person being sued to file defamation based only on the suit. The exception is called abuse of process, if the defendant first wins the suit on the merits and then is able to prove that the plaintiff filed the suit in bad faith, knowing that the accusation wasn't valid. Either way, its long expensive legal battle.\n\nIf you were actually involved, but disagree with how the situation and your actions are being characterized, then also prepare yourself for a long drawn out legal battle. Or offer to settle.
167549
What the issue or question you need to answer (for class)?  And what class is it for?  Thanks.\n\n\nThis site offers the case in full: \n\nhttp://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/2001/vol1/html/2001scr1_0772.html\n\nThe above is British Columbia College of Teachers v. Trinity West University, et al., ON APPEAL.  HOWEVER, it is indexed as Trinity West University v. British Columbia College of Teachers.  \n\n\nThe site below gives a summary of the case and offers links to look at the case in full (Supreme Court Reports).\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_Western_University_v._British_Columbia_College_of_Teachers
399051
Check out the link I have provided it will give you a ton of cases on this subject. You will just have to do through them and get the information you need.
573222
Classified?  Who released it?  It would have to be privileged too.  Assuming it was and the NYTimes was responsible for the leak AND published it, you have to be able to support a claim of damages with some facts as to how your personal security was "damaged".  A possibility of damages won't be enough.  Emotional damages will hardly be recognized when no physical damage actually occured.  Finally, it is not a class action.  Your family and you are just one plaintiff.
541547
Hi Violet.\n\nWhat area of tort were you reading about? I don't have this particular book as it is too far out of date.\n\nThere must be some context in which importance was attached to what was said, perhaps a reference to some precident or case?