Search

The article discusses several court cases on legal topics like protection from known third-party criminal acts, arbitration agreements, jurisdiction, and default judgments. Among the cases are Harner v. Mercy Hospital Joplin, Hood v. Hale Fireworks, LLC, Karlin v. UATP Springfield, LLC, and Cottonaro v. Express Medical Transportation, Inc.

The article discusses legal issues related to debt collection lawsuits, particularly the challenges facing low-income litigants. Other topics include the scarce support like legal aid available to consumer defendants, how federal and state governments in the U.S. can address the high number of default judgments meted against consumers, and how artificial intelligence (AI)-based tools can be used to address the issues.

The article presents court cases decided by the Utah Supreme Court, Utah Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on topics like default judgments, personal jurisdiction, the right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment, and sovereign immunity. The cases include State v. Hintze, Hennessey v. University of Kansas Hospital, and Jordan Credit Union v. Sullivan.

The Hague Judgments Convention, which facilitates the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, provides for several grounds for the refusal of recognition, including refusal based on insufficient notification. While this ground for refusal of the Judgments Convention seems quite similar to those applied in other conventions, the comparison shows that there are several differences between the Judgments Convention and other texts of reference, both with respect to the context of application as well as with respect to the details of the wording. The optional nature of the grounds for refusal under the Judgments Convention indicates that its primary focus is the free circulation of judgments, and not the protection of the defendant. The latter's protection is left to the discretion of the state of recognition: a sign of trust amongst the negotiators of the Judgments Convention, but also a risk for the defendant. Practice will show whether the focus of the negotiators was justified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents several court cases on topics like hostile work environment claims, negligence, premises liability, and sovereign immunity. Among the cases are State ex rel. School District of Kansas City 33 v. Zhang, Alhalabi v. Missouri Department of Corrections, and Zang v. City of St. Charles. Also cited is the default judgment in the case KDD Enterprises, LLC v. Jeffries.

The article clarify the terminology and delve into some common trouble spots in the analysis of both default and default judgment in Idaho. Topics discussed include ways in which default includes the default entered against a party and the resulting judgment; and defendant's actions that must be responsive to plaintiff's formal court action.

On February 1, 2019, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted a motion for default judgment and entered a $302,511,836.00 award against the Syrian Arab Republic ("Syria"). The court found the Syrian government liable for the death of Marie Colvin, who died in an artillery shelling on February 22, 2012, at a media center in the city of Homs. Colvin was a heralded war correspondent who had previously "cover[ed] conflict zones in Iraq, Chechnya, the Balkans, East Timor, Sri Lanka, Sierra Leone, and Libya." Colvin's heirs brought suit, claiming that because Syria had been designated a "state sponsor of terrorism," it could be held liable for an extrajudicial killing of a U.S. national under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). Judge Amy Berman Jackson concluded that the plaintiffs met the evidentiary burden required to support their claim after finding personal and subject matter jurisdiction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the status of terrorism exception in teh U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976. Topics discussed include judgments awarded through the terrorism exception; challenges surrounding default judgment in the country; and court cases Samantar v. Yousuf and Flatow v. Islamic Republic of Iran on the same.

The article discusses several court cases on legal topics like breach of contract, default judgment on a tax assessment, negligence that led to an accident, and wrongful death. The cases include Reddick v. Spring Estates Homeowner's Association, Yuncker v. Dodds Logistics, LLC, and 370/Missouri Bottom Road/Taussig Road Community Improvement District v. Ice Zone Partners, LLC.

The article presents practical advice for Idaho attorneys on how to deal with a default judgment, and it provides a default judgment checklist which mentions summons compliance with the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure, pleadings, and evidence of damages. Court costs and attorney fees are examined, along with information about service of process and a nonappearance in court by a defaulting party. The Idaho Code and military service affidavits are assessed.

The article discusses several court cases in Missouri as of January 1, 2022. They include Gray v. Missouri Dept. of Corrections which deals with retaliation claim, Marti v. Concrete Coring Co. of North America which states that proper service is required to enter a default judgment, and Luebbering v. Varia wherein the Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District ruled that tort claim was not covered by forum selection clause in the contract.

The article discusses Australian insurance law in relation to the Full Court of South Australia's ruling in the 2008 case QBE Insurance Group Ltd. v. Nguyen which deals with the issue of whether a default judgment renders an insured legally liable to a third party under the terms and conditions of an insurance policy. Settlement agreements are examined, as well as the legal rights and obligations of insurance companies, insurance fraud, and Australia's Insurance Contracts Act 1984.

The article offers information on a general principle that management and control of a corporation is vested in the board of directors with reference to the judicial decision of the Missouri Court of Appeals in the case of Robinson v. Langenbach. It discusses several cases including Struckhoff v. Echo Ridge Farm Inc. related to shareholder oppression, Turner v. Gateway Bobcat of Missouri Inc. regarding default judgments, and Davison v. Dairy Farmers of America Inc. for age discrimination.

The article focuses on litigation-related developments in New Zealand as of August 1, 2014 on topics including security requirements for legal costs, the court's discretion regarding the dispensation of cost awards, and the payment of barristers' fees. Information is provided on impecuniosity and costs payments in default judgments.

In a model of pretrial bargaining under asymmetric information, we analyze the defendant's threat to proceed to trial in the face of a rejected offer. The incidence of trial is lower when the defendant's constraint is binding compared with the unconstrained case. The signs of some of the comparative statics of the model are a function of whether or not the defendant's credibility constraint is binding. In particular, fee shifting has no effect on the incidence of trial when the credibility constraint is not binding, but has an ambiguous effect when the constraint is binding. In this latter case, the use of fee shifting will lower the incidence of trial if and only if the plaintiff expects to shift fees on net to the defendant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the history, purpose and significance of the application of the Rule 55 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of 1938 in default judgments in order to protect a diligent party's rights and maintain an orderly and efficient judicial system. It discusses the judicial decision of the U.S. Circuit Courts in default judgment cases including New York v. Green, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Streeter, and Home Port Rentals Inc. v. Ruben.

The article focuses on the New South Wales (NSW) Supreme Court case Grave v. Blazevic Holdings, which dealt with the NSW Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act of 1999. Topics include liability for progress payments, the enforcement of construction contracts, and defenses to default judgments.

The article discusses several proposals in relation to efforts to improve relief from reportedly abusive debt collection practices in America as of March 2014, focusing on the legal rights of consumers and civil liability for predatory tactics by debt collection agencies under the U.S. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Money judgments, the U.S. Fair Credit Reporting Act, and default judgments are mentioned. Fee shifting, choice of law, and debt collection-related lawsuits are also examined.

A sample law exam concerning civil procedure in Germany is presented, which revolves around questions of default judgments and restitution.

The article offers information on the role of debt collector-judge communications in the debt collection process alongwith the security of the default judgment under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). It informs that the FDCPA was enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1977 to eliminate and ensure consumer protection against the abusive and unfair debt collection practices.

Normally, we can hold persons responsible for their actions without giving explicit reasons for doing so, i.e. our ascriptions of responsibility are justified by default. However, an ascription of responsibility can be challenged under specific conditions, by adducing reasons that excuse or exempt a person from responsibility. The aim of the paper is to show how this "default-and-challenge" structure helps to clarify the concept of responsibility. In particular, the distinction between two kinds of challenges will provide a basis for the distinction between two kinds of responsibility-ascriptions, namely the ascription of accountability and the ascription of praise- or blameworthiness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents information on the adoption of a court rule which assures due process and impedes improper default judgments under the New York Consumer Credit Fairness Act. It evaluates conflicts in New York regarding the evidentiary standard in consumer credit cases for a plaintiff to obtain a default judgment and the response of other jurisdictions to debt buyer lawsuits fixes.

Within the span of nine months, the Arizona Court of Appeals issued two directly conflicting rulings on the correct procedures required to obtain a default judgment under Rule 55(b) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. Although Rule 55(b) seems unambiguous on its face, the Arizona Court of Appeals arrived at two distinct interpretations regarding three key aspects of the rule--namely, what constitutes an appearance; when an appearance triggers the noticed hearing requirement; and when it is appropriate to grant a default judgment by motion or hearing. These competing interpretations hinge on how the policies behind the rule are balanced: Should Arizona favor conserving judicial resources or resolving cases on the merits? As it stands, Rule 55(b) most likely should be read to favor judicial economy given the history of amendments to the rule and a full reading of its plain language. If the Arizona Supreme Court ever takes up the issue, however, the Court ought to consider whether judicial economy should trump a defaulted defendant's interest in participating in a damages hearing when that defendant has shown an interest, albeit imperfect, in defending the claim. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article describes the background of 'default judgments' under Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which governs default judgments, that allows a plaintiff to gain requested relief after a defendant has failed to take a required action within a certain timeframe. It discusses the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case City of New York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC which was regarding personal jurisdiction of a district court over the defendant Mickalis Pawn.

The article discusses the South Carolina Supreme Court case, McClurg v. Deaton in which the plaintiff was injured from the driver of the insured trucking company and plaintiff named the driver who left the company. As mentioned, the case required court to consider meritorious defense and grant defendants relief from default judgments.

The article describes the statewide reversal rate of judgments in civil cases by the Texas Court of Appeals. It examines reversal rates and reasons for reversal in various procedural contexts including reversals following jury trials, summary judgments, and default judgments. It also informs about reversals of orders granting or denying temporary injunctions and pleas to the jurisdiction. It examines reversal rates and reasons for reversal in tort and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) cases.

The Arizona Supreme Court depublished a recent Arizona Court of Appeals case, Neeme Systems Solutions, Inc. v. Spectrum Aeronautica, LLC, on August 31, 2011. The case addressed the ambiguity in the attorney-notice requirement under Rule 55(a) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs the entry of default prior to a default judgment. This Note explores possible explanations for the depublication and the ramifications of those interpretations. Specifically, the depublication indicates that the Court embraces a narrow construction of the attorney-notice provision of the rule and that a failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 55(a) renders a default judgment merely voidable rather than void. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents information on the default judgments committed during the trials with reference to the federal rules of the civil procedure. It discusses the equitable decree pro confesso that was traced back to the time of Justinian the Roman Emperor. Information on the decree of nil dicit with reference to the defendants and the entry of the courts of common law to that decree is also presented.

The article examines the decision of the U.S. court case Collins Financial Services v. Vigilante. It discusses the issues on debt collection and default judgment lawsuits. It also notes on the decision of the court to increase documentation requirements for the affidavits and the documentation underlying the affidavits in default judgments. It studies the impact of the requirements to the future debt collection litigation and mentions the opportunity of the court to protect consumers through the implementation of same requirements in consumer credit cases.

Copyright of Collected Papers of Zagreb Law Faculty / Zbornik Pravnog Fakulteta u Zagrebu is the property of Sveuciliste u Zagrebu, Pravni Fakultet and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article focuses on the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(b)(4) in the U.S. It cites that the rule is important because it helps people during a vulnerable period. It notes that Rule 62(b)(4) can help a defendant protect its assets if its lawyer is aware of the rule. The author also adds that Rule 62(b)(4) may also help the plaintiff's lawyer in legitimizing the default judgment of the court.

The article offers information on the use of issue preclusion to default judgments in New York courts. It states that default judgments are released because of two discrete forms of inaction by a defendant. It says that one line of New York cases permits issue preclusion to apply default judgments, accompanying a well-constituted history. Another line of cases adopts the rule established in the Restatement of Judgments, stating that issues determined by a default judgment are not really litigated and do not give rise to issue preclusion.

Copyright of Revista Umbral Científico is the property of Universidad Manuela Beltran and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)