Accordingly, National was not required to offer underinsured motorist coverage to drivers under the self-insured statute, which requires only self-insurers to provide uninsured motorist coverage. Further, under its rental agreement, National was required to provide underinsured motorist coverage only if the vehicle was involved in an accident in a state that had mandatory underinsured motorist coverage that could not be rejected by any means. In Ohio, the coverage is rejectable. In accordance, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of National and against Metropolitan. Estate of Ralston v. Metro.Prop.&Cas.Ins146 Ohio App.3d 630 (2001) 2001-Ohio-3478 In our case, just as in Estate of Ralston, Sage Rent-A Car was self-insured under the provisions of R.C.4509.62, and R.C.4509.72 (a)(b), excluding them from liability.
Defendants' argument is not persuasive. In Towler [v. Sayles, 76 F.3d 579 (4th Cir.1996)], the plaintiff relied on the theoretical possibility that agents to whom she had sent her screenplay "could have sent the work to" the alleged infringer. Id. There was no evidence that the agents had sent the work to the defendant, only the plaintiff's suggestion that such a transmittal was hypothetically possible. This, the Fourth Circuit concluded, was not adequate proof of access.
In each case, the court ruled against suppressing the evidence. However the Michigan Supreme Court reversed, relying on Terry v. Ohio. The Supreme Court ruled that the search violated the fourth amendment, and the illegal “fruit” (marijuana) should be discarded. The protective search of the passenger compartment of respondent's car was reasonable under the principles articulated in Terry and other decisions of this Court. Protection of police and others can justify protective searches when police have a reasonable belief that the suspect poses a danger.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS JUSTIN WILLIAM KING, ) ) Plaintiff. ) Civil Action No. 11-CIV-012345 ) ) v. ) ) Honorable Julie James ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES, INC. ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF TO: Plaintiff Justin King c/o Jane Smith 123 Main Street Chicago, IL 60601 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that defendant demands answers to the following Interrogatories, to be answered under oath, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO.
This also means that if the truckers refuse to install the rear-fender mudguards, the state of Wisconsin will lose commerce from out of state business due to truckers being forced around and not allowed in the state. This directly affects interstate commerce and therefore is unconstitutional. The commerce clause grants the federal government the authority to regulate interstate commerce. The interstate commerce has the ability to pass laws that regulate the behaviors of business. The federal government has the responsibility to enact safety requirements for trucks.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRCIT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS _______________________________________ JUSTIN KING, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) v. ) ) ) ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES, INC., and ) ANHEUSER-BUSCH – INBEV, ) ) Defendant, ) _______________________________________) COMPLAINT COMES NOW, the plaintiff, JUSTIN KING, by and for his complaint against ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES, INC. and ANHEUSER-BUSCH – INBEV (collectively Anheuser-Busch), defendant, alleges as follows: PARTIES 1.1 The plaintiff resides in Kansas City, Missouri. 1.2 The defendant Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Missouri, with its
Brian S. Camp, of Brian S. Camp, PC, Portland, filed the brief for amicus curiae Oregon Trial Lawyers Association. (LILES v. DAMON CORPORATION, 2007-2008) Procedural History: Plaintiffs brought this action under ORS 646A.400 to ORS 646A.418, commonly known as Oregon's Lemon Law, seeking replacement of a motor home that they had purchased. The issue on review concerns the proper interpretation of ORS 646A.402, which
KJL Para 101 Summer 2013 JOANN ALEXANDER and JACK ALEXANDER, Appellants (Plaintiffs Below), v. D. KEVIN SCHEID, M.D. and ORTHOPAEDICS INDIANAPOLIS, INC., Appellees (Defendants Below). Indiana Supreme Court Cause No. 49S05-0004-CV-231 SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA 726 N.E.2d 272; 2000 Ind. LEXIS 248 April 3, 2000, Decided PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT.
Obviously, the federal court should have jurisdiction over the suit because this case involves federal government regulations and the state of Texas is violating the Commerce Clause by unduly burdening interstate commerce, which should make their statute unconstitutional. First, there is only one place located in Texas that manufactures the Z-hitch and the state requires any trucker driving through the state to stop and have the Z-hitch installed. Secondly, the federal government has not made any regulations requiring truck hitches to be used on the nation’s highways. Lastly, the cost to add a z-hitch to a truck is not cheap, not to mention for a trucking company. Dixon Trucking Co. should bring the lawsuit to U.S. District Court; his claim will be that the federal law preempted Texas’ statute.
Trial Brief The following is a trial brief prepared by Carmen Smith To: Carmen Smith From: Supervisory Attorney Date: February 16, 2014 Re: White v. Calkin, Civ 03-388 Jane White Plaintiff vs. Jeffery Calkin & Sage Rent-A-Car Defendants Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss QUESTION PRESENTED Under the New Mexico Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act, (MFRA), NMSA 1978 Sections 66-5-201 to 66-5-239 and NMSA 1978 Section 66-5-205 (1998), can a lessor, who is self-insured by the superintendent of insurance, be held liable for damages caused by the negligent use of a vehicle by a lessee? STATEMENT OF THE CASE Our client, Sage Rent-A-Car Inc. leased a vehicle to Jeffery Calkin. Mr. Calkin collided with Jane White (the plaintiff) after failing to stop at a stop sign. Ms. White filed a negligence law suit against Mr. Calkin and our client, Sage Rent-A-Car siting a violation of the provisions under MFRA. Sage Rent-A-Car, Inc. filed a surety bond with the superintendent of insurance and is self-insured.