Nicole Oulson, widow of Chad Oulson, seeks a jury trial and more than $15,000 in damages.

The lawsuit, filed in Circuit Court in Dade City, Florida, claims that Nicole Oulson, who was also shot, suffered mental anguish, permanent bodily injury, disability and disfigurement.

Charges of second-degree murder for Chad Oulson’s death and aggravated battery for the shooting of Nicole Oulson were filed against retired Tampa police captain Curtis Reeves.

Nicole Oulson’s lawsuit claims that Reeves was confrontational with the Oulsons before the shooting, and complained to theater staff that Chad Oulson was using his cell phone during the movie previews. According to the lawsuit, theater staff should have responded to prevent the potentially dangerous situation from escalating.

The lawsuit names as defendants Cobb Theatres, Oakley Grove Development and Thomas Peck, who worked at the theater.

Nicole Oulson’s lawsuit also claims that the theater was negligent in training Peck, and did not have procedures in place to enforce its policy against firearms. The lawsuit alleges that the developer had a duty not to allow a dangerous situation to exist on its property.

In his criminal case, Reeves has attempted to have the charges dismissed by invoking Florida’s Stand Your Ground law.

If you need to speak with a wrongful death attorney or lawyer, Call Joyce & Reyes at 1.888.771.1529 or visit more of http://www.joyceandreyespa.com/.

According to court documents, the inhabitants of the home discovered Ms. Harvey in their yard, and tried to revive her. But she later died at an area hospital, and her death was determined to be a drowning brought about by a clinical seizure.

When Ms. Harvey’s husband, Stephen, filed a workers’ compensation claim relevant to her death, Bridgeport city officials contended that because she was not a city employee, she was ineligible to receive workers’ compensation benefits. They also argued that Ms. Harvey was a contractor who was compensated on a monthly basis, did not have taxes withheld from her paycheck, and did not receive benefits that are usually granted to city employees.

Court records indicate that employees of the city of Bridgeport have taxes deducted from their paychecks, which are paid biweekly. In addition, the city contended that unlike city employees, Ms. Harvey had the ability to control how and when she performed her work responsibilities. Initially, an arbitrator determined that Ms. Harvey did not meet the requirements for an employee of the city of Bridgeport, and was thus, ineligible for workers’ compensation benefits.

However, when Mr. Harvey filed an appeal with the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, the arbitrator’s decision was reversed, and it was ruled that Ms. Harvey’s death occurred during the course of her employment. The Illinois Compensation Commission issued an order for the city to pay $2,069.25 for medical expenses, $8,000 for burial expenses, and $466.13 each week for 25 years, or $500,000. When the city filed an appeal with the Crawford County, Illinois, Circuit Court, the commission’s decision was upheld. The city’s appeal to the Illinois Court of Appeals also resulted in a unanimous decision in favor of Mr. Harvey.

The appellate court reasoned that although Ms. Harvey had some control over her work, she had to check a specific number of meters every month in order to remain employed as a meter reader. Furthermore, due to the type of work she performed, she sometimes had to travel to low-lying rural areas in which water could collect. The ruling also stated that unlike the general public, her job required her to read the meter in standing water, and that doing so in such a secluded area meant that in the event of an accident, she would not likely receive immediate help.

I believe the court ruled correctly because her job required her to put herself at risk of falling in a pool of water, and potentially suffering injury or death. If you were injured at work, or a loved one suffered an injury, resulting in death, while on the job, you should consult a workers’ compensation attorney.

Paul Greenberg is a Chicago employment and workers’ compensation lawyer with Briskman Briskman & Greenberg. To learn more call 1.877.595.4878 or visit www.briskmanandbriskman.com.

Judge David M. Murkowski, of the Kent County Probate Court, said that typically when someone fails to appear in court without an excuse, a small fine is imposed. In the case of VA regional counsel Roland L. Bessette, however, the case dragged on, became a “proverbial federal case,” and two years later was settled for $45,000 in attorney’s fees – a burden that US taxpayers as a whole will bear.

How could this happen?

The case began when the VA became involved as an interested party in a veteran’s conservator’s probate filing because there were some inconsistencies in the filing. Bessette filed an appearance with the court as an interested party. In September 2011, Judge Murkowski issued a notice to appear at a scheduling conference, which Bessette failed to attend.

Judge Murkowski said that under federal law, some circumstances allow for VA counsel to not report to the court, typically when the VA is an uninterested party in the case. However, in Bessette’s case, he filed as an interested party. The judge then issued a motion and order for Bessette to appear and show cause as to why he should not be held in contempt.

Instead, in December 2011 Bessette requested the U.S. Attorney in Grand Rapids to seek removal of the contempt proceedings to federal court in Grand Rapids. Bessette claimed immunity as a federal employee, and that the probate court did not have jurisdiction over the VA, and that the federal court should toss out the order to show cause.

In September 2012, U.S. District Judge Robert H. Bell ruled that a government attorney “who voluntarily subjects himself to a state court’s authority” by filing an appearance on the behalf of that federal agency has the same obligations to the court as any other lawyer who files an appearance.

Judge Bell denied Bessette’s motion for reconsideration, saying that while Bessette’s defenses may be viable to the order to show cause, they are state defenses that rely on state law and should be heard in a state court.

Finally, in November 2012 Bessette filed for leave of appeal in the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. After mediation with the court, the VA agreed to settle the case for $45,000, which would be for the probate court’s attorney’s fees.

Judge Murkowski noted that he did not want the people of Kent County to bear the cost of this lawsuit, but unfortunately American taxpayers would. Bessette has since retired.

Read more on the case at: http://milawyersweekly.com/news/2014/01/23/case-that-was-worth-a-200-fine-settled-for-45k-in-fees/

Legal Help for Veterans, PLLC fights for veterans rights. We fight to make sure you get the benefits you deserve from the Department of Veterans Affairs. To learn more or contact an attorney about your Post Traumatic Stress, Traumatic Brain Injury, Mental Health, Sexual Assault, Hearing Loss and Tinnitus, Total Disability Based on Individual Unemployability, Medical Malpractice, or Aid and Attendance claim, visit http://www.legalhelpforveterans.com/ or call 800.693.4800

Under Virginia law, a person is considered to have died testate if he or she left a will; otherwise the decedent is considered intestate, which means that the person did not have a valid will at the time of death. And if a person dies intestate, Virginia law will determine who the heirs are and therefore who receives property from the decedent’s estate.

The will may be handwritten by a person, known as the testator, who must sign the will under Virginia law. The handwriting of such so-called holographic wills must be verified at the time of probate by two disinterested witnesses to be accepted. However, the clerk of the court will accept a will if it is self-proving, i.e., it has a properly executed affidavit attached to it.

Only an original will may be presented to the clerk of the court who, if the will has been determined to be validly executed and properly proven, will receive it for recording. In any case, an attorney can review a will to determine whether it is valid and self-proving and can offer advice on whether probate, which is based the specific circumstances of the estate, is even required.

Contact a family law attorney with the McDevitt Law Office of call 1-571-223-7642.

The SEC proxy access rule states that public companies need to provide shareholders with information regarding shareholder-backed candidates when board of directors are going to be voted on. The Business Roundtable and U.S. Chamber of Commerce said this rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act and had not “…adequately considered the rule’s effect upon efficiency, competition, and capital formation.”

Lately the SEC has come under fire for not analyzing their new rules with data and economic analysis that demonstrates the trade-offs and consequences of the new procedures. Some accuse the SEC of “back of the envelope” analysis or picking and choosing what makes sense to them rather than assessing the full economic repercussions of those rules. The Circuit Court decision is the first time one of the new rules has been vacated out of the 250 new requirements of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

Other rules from the Dodd-Frank Act have been challenged and the SEC must consider the far-reaching effects of their regulations. SEC Chairwoman Mary Schapiro has admittedly, “…parachuted into complex legislative matters demanding immediate specialized expertise” that warrants solid economic analysis and legal consideration before releasing as a rule.