What is Otto Preminger Case?
153716
Otto Preminger was a famous movie director during the 1950's.  The Internet Movie Database has a very extensive biography on him.  I didn't read the whole to see if he had been involved in any legal matters or court cases.  Check out the link below.
210564
Sorry, not familiar with the case, but I do suggest Lexis Nexis at your college library
111144
go to google and type in "sports related cases"
932372
Try the Quizlaw website.  \nGoogle "Celebrity lawsuit" and/or "Borat"
716719
This sounds like a deposition.  An attorney is obligated to investigate the facts before bringing charges in a criminal trial or filing a civil action in a law suit.  If they don't and the charges or action is wrong, the attorney can face sanctions or discipline.  The fact finding phase of a trial is known as "discovery".  Parties who have knowledge of the affair are asked questions or sign affidavits.  Both sides have an opportunity to investigate and do their own questioning of any person who would testify.  In a criminal trial, there is a constitutional right to force adverse witnesses to appear and swear by oath or affirmation in open court.\n\nIn a civil deposition, at least one attorney from either side will be present, usually at the office of the attorney who is running the deposition.  There will also be a court reporter.  One of the attorneys will ask the witness a series of questions for a maximum of 1 day of 6 hours.  The other side will make objections, but the witness still has to answer.  Those objections are later brought up before a magistrate or judge and if they are sustained, that part of the testimony will be stricken.  A witness in a deposition testifies under oath as if they were in court.  If they are later brought into court during the trial, they are bound by what they said at the deposition and could face perjury charges if they contradict themselves.\n\nFor a good view of a civil deposition, read part of the book or see the movie "A Civil Action" with John Travolta.  For criminal interrogation, Law and Order is a good drama (that is nothing like the real thing but is entertaining).\n\nAs a drama, the attorneys are trying to get the witness to reveal something or to hide something.  The witness may feel remorse but at the same time fear of punishment (from the law or the boss).  A conflict results from the lawyers who are bound by the law, and the audience who wants to see the truth revealed.  In actuallity, the role of the court is to protect each party's legal rights, promote substantial justice, and resolve disputes.  It is not the role of the court to find the truth.  The audience wants to see this however.\n\nIn most scenes, the lawyer is defeated in a deposition by words.  Either their objections fail or the words of the attorney create enough guilt to get the witness to break down and come up with the "truth".  There is a conflict between the witness and the parties of the case, between the lawyers and their clients, between the lawyers themselves, and between the lawyer and the witness.  You must discover what this conflict or relationship is between each role and this will tell you how to act.\n\nGood luck!
1053730
Here is some brief information on each of the fathers and the namesakes of the celebrities you mention above.\n\nFreddie Prinze (June 22, 1954 – January 29, 1977) was an American stand-up comedian and actor. He was of Puerto Rican descent on his mother's side and German on his father's side. Although he would claim his father was a 'Hungarian Jew', his father was actually a German Lutheran; He referred to himself as a "Hungarican." In his short career he was best known as the star of Chico and the Man. He was the father of actor Freddie Prinze, Jr.\n\nRobert Downey Sr. (born in 1937), born Robert John Elias Jr., is an actor, writer and director. He is best known as the director and writer of the cult classic feature film Putney Swope. Father of Robert Downey Jr. he began directing low budget independent films in the early 1960s. Putney Swope a biting satire on the New York Madison Avenue advertising agency business was his first film to receive a major release by Don Rugoff.\n\nHarry Connick, Sr. was the successor to Jim Garrison as the district attorney of the city of New Orleans. He argued the case of Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) before the United States Supreme Court. In 1989, Connick and actor Paul Burke were indicted on racketeering charges of aiding and abetting a gambling operation by returning gambling records to an arrested gambler. [1] He and Burke were acquitted of all charges after a seven-week trial. After his retirement, Harry Connick was succeeded as District Attorney by Eddie Jordan. Connick's son, Harry Connick, Jr. is a successful singer, pianist, actor, and humanitarian. Like his famous son, the elder Connick is also a singer of some note, long performing a few nights a week at local clubs as a hobby.\n\n\nHope this helps!!!
900644
About flippin' time!\n\nThank goodness he wasn't being tried in the American court system -- he'd still be alive 40 years from now as he ran the gamut of the appeals process, right up to the Supremne Court.
71671
Not really..despite it seeming to be justified.  If she comes back after, at a different day and time or even 20 minutes after, having PLANNED to kill him, ie...it is premeditated-  Then NO.  No matter how much of a bastardo he was and may have deserved it, then more than likely NO, she will be tried for murder.  The jury and court may take into consideration her mental state, abused women's syndrome etc...and grant immunity (look into) or a reduced sentence but still she runs the risk of being tried for premeditated murder.  \nIf she kills him during a battle so to speak, during an attack, out of self-defense, then she can use that as her defense in court. \n\nBut to help you stir your creative juices, being a writer myself(currently on hiatus).  That is where the meat of the story can come into place.  That is where you really have to dig deep into your ability and create a reason for her to have been freed or wrongly tried...ie.  (ok I'm giving this away, just give me credit if you use this..hahhah..)...false or fraudulant evidence, witness trouble(anything you can imagine), blackmail on anyone's part, legal loopholes(you'll need legal advise for that), death of witnesses or jurors, a relationship with someone with power...and so on!!  There are so many ways that you can creatively figure something out.  It just requires some serious writing.  Beyond the fast produced plotlines and conflicts.  Think(I know scripts more) Usual Suspects,  Memento,  Donnie Darko, Dead Again..etc.  \nGood luck!\n\noh, and I say this nicely, in case you wrote the question like you write books, hopefully not, work on sentence structure.
505733
Otto Skorzeny was a storm trooper extraordinaire.  He was a devoted Nazi through and through and was a favorite of Hitler.  He ran a successful mission to rescue Mussolini towards the end of the war.  He ran infiltration groups dresses as American soldiers during the Battle of the Bulge.  He also alledgedly was involved in setting up the Odessa escape organization that helped my Nazis flee Germany and head to South America.  He was not necessarily a very nice guy, but he certainly was the "go to" paratrooper for the Third Reich.  He was called the "Most Dangerous Man in Europe", led a fascinating life, and died of cancer at age 67.
746750
Hi Amy, not sure what the previous post was about, but it was clearly uncalled for.\n\nAs a lawyer who has seen the movie (albeit a while back) I am sure there are many issues you could raise.  This is all just sort of stream of consciousness off the top of my head, so I apologize if it's not too organized, but here are a few thoughts.\n\n1)  It seems to me that much of the protagonist's (I've forgotten his name) actions are designed at misleading others.  If he does this for his own material gain he may be comitting fraud (for example, doesn't he mislead the former Marlboro man into accepting a cash settlement of some sort-?--that could be a fraudulent inducement into a contract).\n2)You also might want to look into whether or not there are any applicable lobbying laws he violates.\n3)  Are there laws against "pushing"cigarettes to minors (I'm thinking of the little classroom lecture he gives) or something similar.\n\nThe best way to do legal research for applicable cases or statutes is using lexis nexis or Westlaw.  To the unitiated these databases can be daunting, but if you are at a large university you may be able to get access at the law library.  Failing that, you might want to go to a local law library and ask the librarian for help (call ahead and explain the situation to clear access ahead of time).  Yet another option is to check out www.findlaw.com, which generally provides access to cases and articles free of charge, but is no where near as sophisticated as Lexis or Westlaw.  Finally, you might call your state bar association's relevant sub group or a Washington Lobbying or ethics organization (I do not know but suspect there are several) and see if they have any suggestions.  Research is about getting your hands dirty and hitting dead ends until something clicks into place.  Good luck!
977284
The defendant, he's being tried.
211724
British historian David Irving wrote and published "Hitler's War," which he carried into court with him, a stupid display of arrogance.\nIn 1992, a judge in Germany fined him the equivalent of $6,000 for publicly insisting the Nazi gas chambers at Auschwitz were a hoax.\nHe knew what he was getting into, it's not like he was some innocent citizen just stating an opinion.
812511
lived from 1885-1941.\n\nNovember 9: Story 1  After listening to brief arguments yesterday afternoon Justice Childs in Special Term dismissed the habeas corpus proceedings instituted by Anthony C. Woeckener against Frank C. Bostock to get possession of his wife, Chiquita, the doll lady. William J. Creamer represented Bostock and Eugene M. Bartlett appeared for Chiquita's boy husband.\n\nAs soon as the writ was dismissed, and before Mr. Bostock could leave the court house, papers were served on him in a suit for $20,000 damages brought by Woeckener for Bostock's action in separating him from his wife. At the same time an order of arrest for Mr. Bostock, as an incident to this civil action, was prepared for the purpose of insuring his presence at the trial. This order of arrest was served by Deputy Sheriff Bates and later Mr. Bostock furnished bail in the sum of $1000 and was released. \n\nAll I could find about him lol.
518957
Assuming that there was no conspiracy to frame the individual for a capital offence with the expectation that he would die (very Hollywood ...), no one would be legally liable, especially not for murder (no mens rea to commit a criminal act, e.g.) \n\nThe terminology is "Wrongful Conviction".\n\nIt might be interesting to consider whether there would be a civil case against the State, however.  Consider high-profile cases of wrongful conviction that have led to long sentences - and to high compensation awards upon release after innocence has been determined.  I would think that civil liability would follow if it ould be shown that there were systemic errors/biases or specific cases of negligence in the investigation and prosecution.\n\nEven then, there may be bars against liability, depending on local legislation.
192052
What kind of case is it?\nEmployment?  Something that happened at the McDonalds?
163790
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/anthony/sbahome.html
425347
Not personally, I have not but a quick search shows that there were at least 691 cases where Zurich were either plaintiff or defendant.\nSome fun cases involved flooded Biedermeier furniture, damaged backfill and  steam pipe.\nAnd there even was a case where a hotel sued Zurich because they refused to pay lost profits insurance after air planes were grounded following 9-11 terrorist attacks(Zurich won that one!).