Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

Home Complaints/Parties Actions Minutes Pending Hearings Case Report Images Case Type Case Number Results In Same New Window Case RIC512723 - FRANK VS RIVERSIDE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Complaint Number: 1 Complaint Type: Petition Filing Date: 11/12/2008 Complaint Status: ACTIVE Party Number Party Type Party Name Attorney Party Status 1 Petitioner LEOTA ANN FRANK Pro Per Fees Waived 6 Petitioner LEE FRANK Pro Per 2 Respondent RIVERSIDE DISTRICTATTORNEY'S OFFICE COUNTY COUNSEL Serve Required (WaitS) 3 Respondent RIVERSIDE SHERIFF OFFICE COUNTY COUNSEL Serve Required (WaitS) 4 Respondent ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES COUNTY COUNSEL Serve Required (WaitS) 5 Respondent CA VICTIMS COMPENSATION PROGRAM Unrepresented Serve Required (WaitS) 7 Respondent DAIMA CALHOUN KINKLE, RODIGER, &SPRIGGS Demurr 03/20/2009 8 Respondent MICHAEL RUSHTON KINKLE, RODIGER, &SPRIGGS Demurr 03/20/2009 9 Respondent CECELIA PLACENCIA KINKLE, RODIGER, &SPRIGGS Demurr 03/20/2009 10 Respondent KIM EMMERLING KINKLE, RODIGER, &SPRIGGS Demurr 03/20/2009 11 Respondent STANLEY SNIFF, KINKLE, RODIGER, &SPRIGGS Demurr 03/20/2009 12 Respondent JOHN SCHULTZ KINKLE, RODIGER, &SPRIGGS Demurr 03/20/2009 13 Respondent DAN WILHELM KINKLE, RODIGER, &SPRIGGS Demurr 03/20/2009 14 Respondent JESSE MARTINEZ KINKLE, RODIGER, &SPRIGGS Demurr 03/20/2009 15 Respondent ANDRE O'HARA, KINKLE, RODIGER, &SPRIGGS Demurr 03/20/2009 16 Respondent E.H. DENNY, KINKLE, RODIGER, &SPRIGGS Demurr 03/20/2009 17 Respondent MARK FAJARDO, M.D., Unrepresented Serve Required (WaitS) 18 Respondent BOARD OF SUPERVISORS KINKLE, RODIGER, &SPRIGGS Serve Required (WaitS) * a: Amazon * d: Download Squad * f: Facebook * g: Digg * l: Lifehacker * m: Masha

Court Opinions US Supreme Court US Tax Court Board of Patent Appeals State Laws Alabama Arizona California Florida Georgia Illinois Indiana Massachusetts Michigan Nevada New Jersey New York North Carolina Oregon Pennsylvania Texas Virginia Washington US Code Copyrights Crimes Labor Patents Shipping US Constitution Preamble Art. I - Legislative Art. II - Executive Art. III - Judicial Art. IV - States' Relations Art. V - Mode of Amendment Art. VI - Prior Debts Art VII - Ratification California Codes Legal Research Home > California Lawyer Sponsored Links California Constitution . (Cal. Const.) California Business and Professions Code . (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code) California Civil Code . (Cal. Civ. Code) California Code of Civil Procedure . (Cal. Civ. Proc.) California Commercial Code . (Cal. Com. Code) California Corporations Code . (Cal. Corp. Code) California Education Code . (Cal. Educ. Code) California Elections Code . (Cal. Elec. Code) California Evidence Code . (Cal. Evid. Code) California Family Code . (Cal. Fam. Code) California Financial Code . (Cal. Fin. Code) California Fish and Game Code . (Cal. Fish & Game Code) California Food and Agricultural Code . (Cal. Food & Agric. Code) California Government Code . (Cal. Gov't Code) California Harbors and Navigation Code . (Cal. Harb. & Nav. Code) California Health and Safety Code . (Cal. Health & Safety Code) California Insurance Code . (Cal. Ins. Code) California Labor Code . (Cal. Lab. Code) California Military and Veterans Code . (Cal. Mil. & Vet. Code) California Penal Code . (Cal. Penal Code) California Pr

Results 1 - 10 of about 6,840 for victim restitution funds , victims right to jury trial if denied . ( 0.43 seconds) Did you mean: victim restitution funds, victims right to jury trial is denied Search Results [DOC] Chapter 3 - 6 visits - Apr 21 File Format: Microsoft Word - View as HTML It reminds the judge, jury, court personnel, and parole boards of the real ..... Restitution is the oldest victim right. The concept of restitution dates back ..... hearings at which they were denied the opportunity to receive notice, ..... by the Crime Victims Fund, which is administered by the Office for Victims ... https://www.ovcttac.gov/nvaa2008/documents/participants_text/03%20Basic%20 Victims '%20 Right s.doc - Similar pages - [DOC] Draft changes to Ohio Revised Code 2930 & related Victim Rights - 2 visits - Mar 28 File Format: Microsoft Word - View as HTML Oct 1, 2008 ... A few Ohio judges have denied the right of victims to present both an oral and ... 8) Summary - Victims will have the right to restitution through a mandatory ... If a motion is made for modification of a restitution order, ... the Ohio Victim Compensation Fund, that restitution amount shall be paid ... www.ovwa.org/_uploaded/69.doc - Similar pages - [PDF] THE VICTIM IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML then be communicated to the issuing body (judge or grand jury). ... sentencing, the judge denied victims the right to speak. ... noted earlier, victims controlled the trial of their victimizer, but as the state took on the .... received in crime victim compensation funds. Unlike restitution and compensation ... meetings.abanet.org/webupload/commupload/CR300000/newsletterpubs/ victims report.pdf - Similar pa

Negligent property owners may face criminal action Apr 1, 2009 Negligent county property owners that ignore or refuse requests from the Calloway County Property Protection Board to take action to alleviate dangerous conditions on their land may face criminal as well as civil action soon ... The Calloway County Property Protection Board is charged with contacting owners of property that present a danger to the public because of the physical condition of their property and taking civil action if necessary. (Murray Ledger & Times, KY) http://www.lawkt.com/files/Civil_Action.html

Disabled-Access Lawsuit Called 'Extortion' Mar 28, 2009 -- A local attorney who's filed hundreds of nearly identical lawsuits over handicapped access is being called an extortionist for his latest civil action. Scott Johnson, a quadriplegic, is suing Conover Auto Repair for not having proper parking. (KCRA 3, CA)

Section 402 allows a court, in its discretion, to award attorneys' fees to a prevailing party in suits to enforce the voting guarantees of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments, and statutes enacted under those amendments. This section is similar to provisions in Titles II and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibit discrimination in public accommodations and employment, and to Section 403 of this act (the coverage of which is described below). Such a provision is appropriate in voting rights cases because there, as in employment and public accommodations cases, and other civil rights cases, Congress depends heavily upon private citizens to enforce the fundamental rights involved. Fee awards are a necessary means of enabling private citizens to vindicate these Federal rights. It is intended that the standards for awarding fees under sections 402 and 403 be generally the same as under the fee provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. A party seeking to enforce the rights protected by the Constitutional clause or statute under which fees are authorized by these sections, if successful, "should ordinarily recover an attorney's fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust." Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402, 88 S.Ct. 964, 19 L.Ed.2d 1263 (1968). . . . In several hearings held over a period of years, the Committee has found that fee awards are essential if the Constitutional requirements and Federal statutes to which sections 402 and 403 apply are to be fully enforced. We find that the effects of such fee awards are ancilliary (sic) and incident to securing compliance with these laws, and that fee awards are an integral part of the remedies necessary to obtain such compliance. Fee awards are therefore provided in cases covered by sections 402 and 403 in accordance with Congress' powers under, inter alia, the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5. As with cases brought under 20 U.S.C. § 1617, the Emergency School Ai

Section 402 allows a court, in its discretion, to award attorneys' fees to a prevailing party in suits to enforce the voting guarantees of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments, and statutes enacted under those amendments. This section is similar to provisions in Titles II and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibit discrimination in public accommodations and employment, and to Section 403 of this act (the coverage of which is described below). Such a provision is appropriate in voting rights cases because there, as in employment and public accommodations cases, and other civil rights cases, Congress depends heavily upon private citizens to enforce the fundamental rights involved. Fee awards are a necessary means of enabling private citizens to vindicate these Federal rights. It is intended that the standards for awarding fees under sections 402 and 403 be generally the same as under the fee provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. A party seeking to enforce the rights protected by the Constitutional clause or statute under which fees are authorized by these sections, if successful, "should ordinarily recover an attorney's fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust." Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402, 88 S.Ct. 964, 19 L.Ed.2d 1263 (1968). . . . In several hearings held over a period of years, the Committee has found that fee awards are essential if the Constitutional requirements and Federal statutes to which sections 402 and 403 apply are to be fully enforced. We find that the effects of such fee awards are ancilliary (sic) and incident to securing compliance with these laws, and that fee awards are an integral part of the remedies necessary to obtain such compliance. Fee awards are therefore provided in cases covered by sections 402 and 403 in accordance with Congress' powers under, inter alia, the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5. As with cases brought under 20 U.S.C. § 1617, the Emergency School Ai

While for most programs fund recovery is a minor source of total income , a few programs are beginning to recover close to 10% of their awards. VOCA . Federal funds provide about 20-25% of the state compensation programs' total budgets, through grants authorized by the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (VOCA). Under VOCA, for every $100 a state awards to victims, it gets $40 in federal funds to spend; this results in a 72%-to-28% split in state-federal dollars spent each year (of every $140 awarded to victims, $100 is state money and $40 is federal funds). States also must bear all or nearly all of the administrative costs for operating their programs (only 5% of each state's VOCA grant is available for administrative purposes). While the large majority of funds spent in operating the programs and paying victims comes from state budgets, VOCA grants have enabled many states to expand coverage, and they make a significant difference in ensuring that there is enough money available to cover all eligible victims that may apply. VOCA will provide about $70 million to state compensation programs in federal fiscal year 1999. To be eligible for a federal grant, certain conditions must be met. Programs must cover medical expenses, mental health counseling, and lost wages for victims, as well as funeral expenses and lost support for families of homicide victims. They must consider drunk driving and domestic violence as compensable crimes, and must not categorically exclude domestic violence victims on the basis of their being related to or living with the offender. (Programs may deny claims when an award to the victim would unjustly enrich the offender.) Program must agree to consider for eligibility all U.S. citizens who are victims of crimes within their states, regardless of the residency of the victim . Each state also must offer benefits to its own residents who are victimized in states without compensa

Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is the rule which explains the mechanics of a summary judgment motion. As explained in the notes to this rule, summary judgment procedure is a method for promptly disposing of actions in which there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. Prior to its introduction in the US in 1934, it was used in England for more than 50 years. In England motions for summary judgments were used only in cases of liquidated claims, there followed a steady enlargement of the scope of the remedy until it was used in actions to recover land or chattels and in all other actions at law, for liquidated or unliquidated claims, except for a few designated torts and breach of promise of marriage. English Rules Under the Judicature Act (The Annual Practice, 1937) O. 3, r. 6; Orders 14, 14A, and 15; see also O. 32, r. 6, authorizing an application for judgment at any time upon admissions. New York was a leader in the adoption of this rule in the US and the success of the method helps account for its current importance as an almost indispensable tool in administrative actions (especially before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission which adjudicates employment discrimination claims and the Merit Systems Protection Board which adjudicates federal employment matters).[2]