Motion to Vacate Sample

For summary judgment to be granted, the movant must show “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The appellate standard of review for reviewing summary judgment orders in this case is the de novo standard, as this is a decision regarding “mixed questions of law and fact”. Barr v. Lafon, 538 F.3d 554, 562 (6th Cir. 2008).

Johnson further maintains that the circuit court erred by admitting documents that were not properly authenticated. The State counters that “the appearance and contents of each of the documents contained sufficient information from which the factfinder could have reasonably concluded that the document was what the State purported it to be.” We hold that the documents admitted against Johnson were properly authenticated.

Her attorney argued that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal, warrant less search. Because the search was unlawful, he maintained that the evidence was illegally obtained and must also be excluded. In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized that ?a reasonable argument? could be made that the conviction should be reversed ?because the ?methods? employed to obtain the evidence?were such as to offend a sense of justice.? But the court also stated that the materials were admissible evidence. The Court explained its ruling by differentiating between evidence that was peacefully seized from an inanimate object, such as a trunk, rather than forcibly seized from an individual. Based on this decision, Mapp's appeal was denied and her conviction was upheld.

We have repeatedly held that a verdict may not be directed unless the evidence all points one way and is susceptible of no reasonable inference

7. Court’s Order: As a result of this holding the court has established sufficient law entitles P to have her case heard before trial court.

But such evidence is only relevant if its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect. Id. Generally, the “remoteness in time of the other bad acts is ordinarily a factor affecting the weight of the evidence.” State v. Shaw, 847 S.W.2d 768, 778 (Mo. Banc 1993). But when “remoteness is so great that it erodes the probative value of the evidence, the prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value and the evidence is not admissible.” Id.

Moreover, the claimant believes that he has presented all the necessary evidence that could have supported his claim. For instance, the defendant have intentionally interfered the claimant’s contractual agreement with the hospital by using improper means and finally resulted his termination. On other hand, the defendant prevented chances that could have allowed the claimant to return his work in later days by enticing the hospital to introduce a rule that disallows to perform any service from the hospital. Due to that, the plaintiff demanded for the appeal court to grant him the summary of judgement and reverse the circuit court decision. On the other hand, the defendant beliefs that the circuit court reach a fair decision and demands the appeal court to affirm the decision that has already been

(367) This statement shows that legal actions have gradually improved throughout the years. One of the focal issues Schulz brings up is the idea that we change and contort evidence in light of the fact that it makes a difference to the person. Shaping our convictions on evidence and the assortment of fields (science, journalism, politics, and medicine), develops “specific and formal ideas about [it] -- what kind of information qualifies, how to gather it, how to evaluate it” (363). Yet to Descartes’ chagrin, “believing things based on paltry evidence is the engine that drives the entire miraculous machinery of

Evidence is admissible when it has any tendency in reasoning to make the case that it is presented to validate or invalidate either more or less probable evidence. Moreover, in order for evidence to be relevant a specific item must not make the fact for which it is offered certain, or even more apparent than not. However, the evidence must have some tendency to increase the possibility of the fact in which it was offered (FindLaw, 2016).

(b) If new and material evidence is submitted, the Appeals Council shall consider the additional evidence only where it relates to the period on or before the date of the administrative law judge hearing decision. The Appeals Council shall evaluate the entire record including the new and material evidence submitted if it relates to the period on or before the date of the administrative law judge hearing decision. It will then review the case if it finds that the administrative law judge 's action, findings, or conclusion is contrary to the weight of the evidence currently of record.

Under the Ninth Circuit’s approach, it cannot be said that this claim is “unrelated to the

Since the court were unclear of the of these four criteria, the experts testimony was not admissible. Furthermore, under Rule 702, the Plaintiffs

It was granted that this was plenty good enough circumstantial evidence. A pensive silence followed, which lasted some moments, then

The jury found in favor of Phillippe and awarded $125,000 on his first theory, but rejected his other two. The trial court denied Shapell's motion for a new trial and entered judgment in favor of

In this case, we realize that sometimes clear and solid evidence has to be used to prove that something is right, even if everyone believes the opposite.