death attorney and death lawyers information and location

Sample:

Wrongful Death Claim

An older man in his early sixties walked into my office after making an appointment. He looked very tired and worned out. His eyes were bloodshot from lack of sleep. There were dark circles around his eyes and it was clear he had not eaten well or rested in a while. He then told me how he had lost his son. It was a very sad story. One can only imagine how painful the experience must have been. Following the death of his son, he did not know what to do. He wanted justice, but how can there be justice for the death of his son ? No one can bring him back. He had previously contacted a TV lawyer that dropped the case after reviewing a negative highway patrol report. We made no promises other than doing our best. After a thorough investigation we determined the Highway patrol made an error. Soon after we resolved the case for him, and he was pleased to see that his son’s life had been validated.

wrongful death lawyer In Australia and the United Kingdom: Claim

Wrongful death is a claim in common law jurisdictions against a person who can be held liable for a death. The claim is brought in a civil action, usually by close relatives, as enumerated by statute. Under common law, a dead person cannot bring a suit, and this created a legal hole in which activities that resulted in a person’s injury would result in civil sanction but activities that resulted in a person’s death would not.

The standard of proof in the United States is typically preponderance of the evidence as opposed to clear and convincing or beyond a reasonable doubt. In Australia and the United Kingdom, it is ‘on the balance of probabilities’. For this reason it is often easier for a family to seek retribution against someone who kills a family member through tort than a criminal prosecution. However, the two actions are not mutually exclusive; a person may be prosecuted criminally for causing a person’s death (whether in the form of murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, or some other theory) and that person can also be sued civilly in a wrongful death action (as in the O.J. Simpson cases). Wrongful death is also the only recourse available when a company, not an individual, causes the death of a person; for example, historically, families have tried (both successfully and unsuccessfully) to sue tobacco companies for wrongful deaths of their customers.

Social justiceis a euphemism for tyranny

by David Ziemer

Deep down, I’m just a simple, provincial lawyer

So, the powerlust that motivates what is called “the social justice crowd” has always been something I couldn’t fathom. I gave up trying to understand their motivation decades ago.

In rereading John Milton’s “Paradise Lost,” though, I may have finally found the understanding I was seeking. The most powerful passage in the poem is when, upon his expulsion from Heaven, Satan wakes up next to the burning lake in Hell and delivers a monologue to rationalize his situation.

In that monologue, he utters the classic line, “Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.”

That desire to reign in Hell, I believe, must be what drives all those who advocate for positive rights, such as the right to health care, as opposed to negative rights, such as the right to free speech.

Logically, something like health care cannot be considered a right. After all, if one person has a right to do nothing, yet still receive free health care, then so does everyone. But someone has to actually provide the health care, someone has to invent and manufacture pills, and someone else has to create the wealth needed to pay for it all.

Yet all those people have the right to do nothing while someone else provides for their health, too. So, creating a right to health care for all ultimately must lead to no health care for anyone.

Until that point was reached, though, what would happen if health care were to be recognized as a right is that a new class would arise – the class that gets to order Doctor A to provide health services to Citizen A, and Citizen B to pay for it.

In other words, someone gets to reign in Hell; and the social justice crowd wants to be the ones who do.

A right to state-provided legal representation in civil cases would be no different. Some lucky citizens would get free lawyers; some poor citizens would have to pay for them; some lawyers would have to provide the legal services; and someone would get to decide who are the chosen ones, and who has to be the saps.

The social justice crowd wants to reign in Hell, and be the ones to make those choices.

That would be a much cushier job than setting up a law practice and doing the hard work necessary to get and keep clients.

Thus, by returning to Milton’s classic work, I finally discovered that speaking of positive rights is just code language for expressing the desire to reign, rather than to serve.

And that “social justice” is just a euphemism for “tyranny.”

Source: http://www.wislawjournal.com/article.cfm?recID=75805

Milwaukee County: physician guilty of murdering ex-wife

Physician Gerhard Witte told a jury Wednesday that except for the moments he spent slaughtering his ex-wife in a downtown parking structure, he has lived a life governed by reason, piety and love for his family.

“I want you to carry back to the jury room that this honorable man did something to be dishonorable,” Witte, acting as his own attorney, said during his closing arguments.

Witte admitted that when it comes to lapses in honorability, stabbing Elisabeth Witte in the abdomen then slitting her throat was, as he put it, “a big one.”

Members of the jury apparently agreed. They spent 31 minutes in deliberation before finding Witte guilty of first-degree intentional homicide.

Witte’s three adult children, seated behind him in the visitors’ gallery of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Daniel Konkol’s small courtroom, held hands as the verdict was announced shortly before noon.

Source and read more: http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/89018142.html

A Wisconsin case is headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

On Mar. 22, the Court granted certiorari in Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., No. 09-834. It agreed to decide whether an oral complaint about a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is protected conduct under the statute’s anti-retaliation provision.

At the trial level, U.S. District Court Judge Barbara B. Crabb held that it was not, 619 F.Supp.2d 608 (W.D.Wis.2008), and the Seventh Circuit affirmed on appeal. (570 F.3d 834 (7th Cir.2009).)

Writing for the court, Judge Joel M. Flaum explained, “The use of the verb ‘to file’ connotes the use of a writing. … Although Kasten and the Secretary of Labor claim that ‘to file’ can mean, generally, ‘to submit,’ this seems to us overbroad. If an individual told a friend that she ‘filed a complaint’ with her employer,’ we doubt the friend would understand her to possibly mean that she merely voiced displeasure to a supervisor. Rather, the natural understanding of the phrase ‘file any complaint’ requires the submission of some writing to an employer, court, or administrative body.”

Source and read more: http://www.wislawjournal.com/article.cfm/2010/03/29/High-Court-to-hear-retaliation-case-Meaning-of-file-in-FLSA-at-issue

Law Humor: Judicial Humor

I find it entertaining when a judge puts a bit of humor in an opinion or when they are creative when drafting a decision. Several years ago, a friend told me about Fischer v. Lowe, 333 N.W. 2d 67 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). The case is about an incident involving a car and a tree. The decision is quite poetic (think Joyce Kilmer). I’ve also been told of a Michigan judge, when ruling on a case involving rapper Eminem, created a rap to express her opinion.

The Marian Gould Gallagher Law Library at the University of Washington has a great website dedicated to Judicial Humor. Topics include parody & verse in opinions, veiled references, animals in opinions, humorous plaintiffs, and extraordinary circumstances.

Source: http://www.wislawjournal.com/article.cfm/2010/03/29/Judicial-Humor

Family Law Attorneys Chicago illinois

Durkin & Roberts
53 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 615, Chicago, Illinois 60604 U.S.A.
Preeminent Criminal Defense & International Human Rights Practice.

Stuart T. Edelstein, Ltd.
100 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1910, Chicago, Illinois 60602 U.S.A.
Representing Individuals and Small Businesses for Almost 50 Years in Chicago, Cook County, and Lake County, Illinois. Abundance of experience with Liquor Licensing and probate matters.

Robert H. Hirsch Law Office

180 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3150, Chicago, Illinois 60601 U.S.A.
Robert H. Hirsch is a practicing divorce attorney, duly licensed in the State of Illinois for more than 40 years. He has prosecuted and defended numerous divorce Appellate Court Proceedings.

Doctors Refusing to Treat Malpractice Lawyers

The New York Times offers the opinion in its “The Ethicist” column that it is perfectly okay for doctors to refuse to treat medical malpractice lawyers. Taking it a step further, the author actually encourages the practice.

The logic of this completely escapes me. Does this doctor believe that it is ethically wrong for a lawyer to handle a medical malpractice case? I’m a lawyer. Some lawyers focus their practice exclusively on legal malpractice cases. It would never even occur to me to have ill feelings towards a legal malpractice lawyer.

Source: http://www.marylandmedicalmalpracticeattorneyblog.com/

The Lure of “The Guy”

When they feel strongly about their case, plaintiff and defense medical malpractice attorneys tend to shoot for the moon to get “the guy” to be their expert. But jurors in malpractice cases understand that doctors are generally pretty qualified. Relative degrees of qualification are less nuanced by a jury. But what they do appreciate is experts who are paid an obscene amount of money have a motivation to lie. Jurors also prefer a medical expert who is a good teacher that explains complex problems in a way they can understand. This is more important than a Harvard fellowship.

Source: http://www.marylandmedicalmalpracticeattorneyblog.com/

Malpractice Reform

Medical malpractice lawyers often contend that malpractice tort reform would actually increase malpractice insurance rates. Coming from trial lawyers, this claim has been readily discounted by many, including me because it would seem to defy fundamental principles of economics. But when this same argument gets raised by the American Academy of Actuaries and is published in Modern Physician, it definitely lends more credence to the argument.

The legal system in general does not fall into step with general principles of economics. Nor should it. Very often, lawmakers try to tip events and end up tipping other points that send the car down the opposite path of the one that was intended

Page 1 of 20123451020...Last »
Template Designed by: Free WP Templates  |  Powered by Web Host Gear