Not exact matches
Practitioners competing for business among themselves and
against other professional advisers may require high profile and tangible
evidence of their firms» capabilities if they are to win and
sustain competitive advantage.
Accused went to cottage of JC with whom she previously cohabited — Accused found JC with victim, another lady, in sauna — Angry words were exchanged between accused and JC — Victim testified that accused pushed her following verbal exchange, as a result victim lost balance and ended up
against stove, thereby
sustaining serious burns to body — Trial judge accepted victim's
evidence that there was some kind of pushing — Accused convicted on one count of assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to two - year term of probation and $ 1,000.00 fine, and accused was also ordered to provide DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04 of Criminal Code — Accused appealed — Appeal
against conviction dismissed — Although trial judge did not address analytical steps in order, he properly analyzed
evidence and concluded that injuries
sustained by victim were not accidental and could not have occurred in any other fashion than as stated by victim — Having provided reasons for accepting victim's
evidence, trial judge was entitled to reject accused's
evidence — Trial judge's reasoning, though skeletal, permitted accused and appellate court to determine how and why finding resulted.
Accused went to cottage of JC with whom she previously cohabited — Accused found JC with victim, another lady, in sauna — Angry words were exchanged between accused and JC — Victim testified that accused pushed her following verbal exchange, as a result victim lost balance and ended up
against stove, thereby
sustaining serious burns to body — Trial judge accepted victim's
evidence that there was some kind of pushing — Accused convicted on one count of assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to two - year term of probation and $ 1,000.00 fine, accused was also ordered to provide DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04 of Criminal Code — Accused appealed — Appeal
against sentence was allowed — Trial judge erred in concluding that discharge was not appropriate in circumstances, especially given conclusion that accused did not deliberately attempt to injure victim — Trial judge found that there was no need for either specific deterrence or general deterrence; prime concern was need for denunciation of her conduct — Section 730 of Criminal Code permits discharge in cases of this nature, provided that it was in best interest of accused and not contrary to public interest — Accused was responsible individual with no record whatsoever, she held position as counsellor and social worker for 25 years — Trial judge did not find that conviction would definitely affect her employment, but possibility existed, and such conviction would necessarily result in criminal record — There was no likelihood of re-offending — Conditional discharge would not be contrary to public interest.
Accused went to cottage of JC with whom she previously cohabited — Accused found JC with victim, another lady, in sauna — Angry words were exchanged between accused and JC — Victim testified that accused pushed her following verbal exchange, as a result victim lost balance and ended up
against stove, thereby
sustaining serious burns to body — Trial judge accepted victim's
evidence that there was some kind of pushing — Accused convicted on one count of assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to two - year term of probation and $ 1,000.00 fine, accused was also ordered to provide DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04 of Criminal Code — Accused appealed
against order to provide DNA sample — Appeal allowed — Order was issued to destroy DNA sample that was taken — Trial judge erred in failing to exercise discretion not to order DNA sample — Accused was first time offender, in circumstances that resulted in serious injuries, but with no intention of causing those injuries — Accused had otherwise been exemplary citizen, and likelihood of re-offending was remote.
Accordingly, before any injured person proceeds in a claim
against a Florida city or county for damages
sustained in an accident on public property, they need to get their
evidence prepared and their case ready to file within a set amount of time or face a bar to their claim based upon immunity.
Tuck v. Supreme Holdings Ltd. et al. 2014 NLTD (G) 131
Evidence — Limitation of Actions — Practice Summary: The plaintiff commenced an action
against the defendants on February 28, 2012, to recover damages allegedly
sustained in a motor vehicle collision that occurred... [more]
We obtained reversal of a multi-million-dollar verdict
against our client, successfully arguing that the
evidence at trial was legally and factually insufficient to
sustain employer liability and front pay on the plaintiff's hostile - environment claims.