Contract Disputes
Contract disputes are one of the most common form of disputes in business litigation. Ideally, every contract would be in writing and well-drafted. However, not all contracts are in writing, and even those that are written may not be well-drafted, leaving some issues unclear or not addressed at all. Often contract disputes involve these and other complex factual and legal issues. That’s where our commercial litigation attorneys excel.
Our attorneys have resolved hundreds of contract disputes through negotiation, mediation and, if necessary, litigation. Whether your case involves a simple contract dispute or complex litigation – involving multiple layers of relationships, extensively detailed agreements, and difficult legal issues – our team of business litigation attorneys will work to resolve your matter with the careful consideration it deserves.
Noncompetition Covenants
A non-competition covenant can be a valuable way to protect a business, whether you are protecting your existing business or are buying one. Non-competition clauses are commonly included in employment contracts, sale agreements and shareholder agreements. Well-drafted non-competition covenants may mean the difference between a business’s success or failure. If there is a difficulty in these covenants, it is their enforceability. The clauses receive additional judicial scrutiny, and there are occasions when courts will not enforce these kinds of covenants.
That is why you need experienced attorneys to assist you in drafting and enforcing non-competition covenants. Our attorneys have represented companies, shareholders, and individual employees in these cases, with an impressive track record.
Shareholder & Partnership Disputes
Like marriages, business partnerships and closely-held corporations begin with high hopes and much goodwill between the parties. Unfortunately, like some marriages, business partnerships occasionally end in acrimony and litigation.
In this complex area of the law, it is important to receive counsel from attorneys who are experienced in shareholder and partnership disputes. Our attorneys represent companies and their shareholders in these kinds of disputes every day. While our counsel often allows companies and shareholders to amicably resolve disputes without litigation, sometimes litigation is unavoidable. When the time comes to litigate, our attorneys stand ready and able to protect your interests.
Riley Bennett & Egloff Law They devote individualized attention and personal service to each separate case and take time to listen to client concerns. Their attorneys have the experience need to find creative solutions to fit their client's individual needs. Contact an Indianapolis business litigation attorney to discuss your case. For more information on business litigation visit http://www.rbelaw.com/practice-areas/business-litigation
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Monday, August 6, 2012
Appeals court upholds hate crime law in Ark. case
A federal appeals court has upheld the hate crime conviction of a Green Forest man who is serving an 11-year prison term for intentionally crashing into a car carrying five Hispanic men and injuring them.
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis ruled Monday there was sufficient evidence that Frankie Maybee and two other men deliberately attacked the other vehicle after a confrontation in a convenience store parking lot.
The court upheld the 2009 Shepard-Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act, a law that Congress approved under the power of the 13th Amendment, which calls for abolishing vestiges of slavery. The court found that attacking someone because of his or her ethnic background is constitutionally prohibited under the Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis ruled Monday there was sufficient evidence that Frankie Maybee and two other men deliberately attacked the other vehicle after a confrontation in a convenience store parking lot.
The court upheld the 2009 Shepard-Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act, a law that Congress approved under the power of the 13th Amendment, which calls for abolishing vestiges of slavery. The court found that attacking someone because of his or her ethnic background is constitutionally prohibited under the Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Florida Construction Law Attorney - Heitman Law Firm, PL.
Our law firm follows the same rules handling your case that you use on the jobsite to build your projects. Our work is Plumb Square and Level. When we say plumb, we mean that we are straight up with you. We evaluate your case and tell you where you stand legally, allowing you to make sound business decisions. Square means that we don’t cut corners in protecting our Client’s legal rights whether in drafting your contracts or handling your construction disputes.
By quality, we mean degree of excellence. Heitman Law Firm practices construction law. Mr. Heitman is an expert in construction law, board certified by the Florida Bar. He is a member of an elite group of board certified construction attorneys. In addition, Mr. Heitman is a Florida Licensed Professional Engineer, with years of experience building real world construction projects. As such, the Firm is extremely well qualified to render its clients high quality legal representation.
Heitman Law Firm has the background, training, and experience to handle every aspect of a construction project. With years of experience, Mr. Heitman has successfully drafted and negotiated multi-million dollar construction contracts and is committed to resolving construction claims on behalf of his clients. Visit www.palmbeachconstructionlaw.org for more information.
By quality, we mean degree of excellence. Heitman Law Firm practices construction law. Mr. Heitman is an expert in construction law, board certified by the Florida Bar. He is a member of an elite group of board certified construction attorneys. In addition, Mr. Heitman is a Florida Licensed Professional Engineer, with years of experience building real world construction projects. As such, the Firm is extremely well qualified to render its clients high quality legal representation.
Heitman Law Firm has the background, training, and experience to handle every aspect of a construction project. With years of experience, Mr. Heitman has successfully drafted and negotiated multi-million dollar construction contracts and is committed to resolving construction claims on behalf of his clients. Visit www.palmbeachconstructionlaw.org for more information.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
2 men sentenced in Palin lawyer harassment case
Two Pennsylvania men convicted of harassing Sarah Palin's Alaska lawyers were sentenced Friday to time served and five years' probation, with the proceedings briefly halted after a short outburst in court by one of the defendants.
During his sentencing in U.S. District Court in Anchorage, 20-year-old Shawn Christy said the judge's order that he live up to six months in a Pennsylvania community re-entry program was "ridiculous."
His father, Craig Christy, 48, was ordered to perform community service.
The Christys, of McAdoo, Pa., pleaded guilty in January to making harassing phone calls to Palin's attorneys. Attorney John Tiemessen testified that the men's calls threatened Palin and attorneys. Both Christys apologized Friday for their actions.
Shawn Christy was released and sent back to Pennsylvania last month after an evaluation report said he wasn't a danger to the pu
During his sentencing in U.S. District Court in Anchorage, 20-year-old Shawn Christy said the judge's order that he live up to six months in a Pennsylvania community re-entry program was "ridiculous."
His father, Craig Christy, 48, was ordered to perform community service.
The Christys, of McAdoo, Pa., pleaded guilty in January to making harassing phone calls to Palin's attorneys. Attorney John Tiemessen testified that the men's calls threatened Palin and attorneys. Both Christys apologized Friday for their actions.
Shawn Christy was released and sent back to Pennsylvania last month after an evaluation report said he wasn't a danger to the pu
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Fed court reverses order for VA system overhaul
A federal appeals court on Monday reversed its demand that the Veterans Affairs Department dramatically overhaul its mental health care system.
A special 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that any such changes need to be ordered by Congress or the president.
The 10-1 ruling reversed an earlier decision by a three-judge panel of the same court.
The May 2011 ruling had ordered the VA to ensure that suicidal vets are seen immediately, among other changes. It found the VA's "unchecked incompetence" in handling the flood of post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental health claims was unconstitutional.
The new decision said courts are powerless to implement the fixes sought by two veterans groups that filed the lawsuit against the VA in 2007. The lawsuits alleged that hundreds of thousands of veterans had to wait an average of four years to fully receive the mental health benefits owed them.
"There can be no doubt that securing exemplary care for our nation's veterans is a moral imperative," Judge Jay Bybee wrote for the majority. "But Congress and the president are in far better position" to decide whether and what changes need to be done.
A special 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that any such changes need to be ordered by Congress or the president.
The 10-1 ruling reversed an earlier decision by a three-judge panel of the same court.
The May 2011 ruling had ordered the VA to ensure that suicidal vets are seen immediately, among other changes. It found the VA's "unchecked incompetence" in handling the flood of post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental health claims was unconstitutional.
The new decision said courts are powerless to implement the fixes sought by two veterans groups that filed the lawsuit against the VA in 2007. The lawsuits alleged that hundreds of thousands of veterans had to wait an average of four years to fully receive the mental health benefits owed them.
"There can be no doubt that securing exemplary care for our nation's veterans is a moral imperative," Judge Jay Bybee wrote for the majority. "But Congress and the president are in far better position" to decide whether and what changes need to be done.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Sydney Criminal Lawyers - Section 10 states a No Conviction case
Section 10 states a No Conviction case. It is when you are guilty or a criminal offence or a major traffic offence but the Court establishes not to charge you with a criminal conviction or licence disqualification. Section 10 of the Crimes Act 1999 is a powerful sentencing procedure and gives the courts the power to deal with guilty individuals by:
- dismissing the charges completely
- discharging the individual into a good behaviour bond for 2 years or less or
- discharging the individual into an intervention program such as a drug and alcohol program or a traffic offender program.
This essential eliminates all high penalties and indicates that there is no criminal conviction, no fines, and in driving cases, no licence disqualitication.
All criminal charges and driving charges are available to get a section 10. However, the court considers many factors when making their decision whether to grant a section 10 to an individual:
(a) the person's character and history, age, health, and mental condition,
(b) the trivial nature of the offence,
(c) the extenuating circumstances in which the offence was committed, and
(d) any other matter that the court thinks proper to consider.
Your chances of getting a section 10 are better if you can provide some materials in court that show you are otherwise of good characther, the offence was convicted during a difficult time in your life, or you have taken steps on improving underlying issues which may have led you to commit the crime or traffic violation from the beginning.
Sydney Criminal Lawyers can help with a no conviction recorded for a criminal or traffic charge you have been convicted of. If you are trying to gain a section 10 on your criminal defence charge, and believe you have extenuating circumstances, our attorneys can help. Call us at (02) 9261 8881 to find out your penalty, make an appointment or have a lawyer call you! Visit us at http://www.criminallaw.com.au/section-10-dismissal for more information.
- dismissing the charges completely
- discharging the individual into a good behaviour bond for 2 years or less or
- discharging the individual into an intervention program such as a drug and alcohol program or a traffic offender program.
This essential eliminates all high penalties and indicates that there is no criminal conviction, no fines, and in driving cases, no licence disqualitication.
All criminal charges and driving charges are available to get a section 10. However, the court considers many factors when making their decision whether to grant a section 10 to an individual:
(a) the person's character and history, age, health, and mental condition,
(b) the trivial nature of the offence,
(c) the extenuating circumstances in which the offence was committed, and
(d) any other matter that the court thinks proper to consider.
Your chances of getting a section 10 are better if you can provide some materials in court that show you are otherwise of good characther, the offence was convicted during a difficult time in your life, or you have taken steps on improving underlying issues which may have led you to commit the crime or traffic violation from the beginning.
Sydney Criminal Lawyers can help with a no conviction recorded for a criminal or traffic charge you have been convicted of. If you are trying to gain a section 10 on your criminal defence charge, and believe you have extenuating circumstances, our attorneys can help. Call us at (02) 9261 8881 to find out your penalty, make an appointment or have a lawyer call you! Visit us at http://www.criminallaw.com.au/section-10-dismissal for more information.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Appeals court tosses Armenian payments law
A federal appeals court on Thursday struck down a novel and
controversial California law that allowed descendants of 1.5 million
Armenians who perished in Turkey nearly a century ago to file claims
against life insurance companies accused of reneging on policies.
The move came when a specially convened 11-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously tossed out a class action lawsuit filed against Munich Re after two of its subsidiaries refused to pay claims.
The ruling, written by Judge Susan Graber, said the California law trampled on U.S. foreign policy — the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government.
The California Legislature labeled the Armenian deaths as genocide, a term the Turkish government vehemently argued was wrongly applied during a time of civil unrest in the country.
The court noted the issue is so fraught with politics that President Obama studiously avoided using the word genocide during a commemorative speech in April 2010 noting the Armenian deaths.
The tortured legal saga began in 2000 when the California Legislature passed a law enabling Armenian heirs to file claims with insurance companies for policies sold around the turn of the 20th century. It gave the heirs until 2010 to file lawsuits over unpaid insurance benefits.
The move came when a specially convened 11-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously tossed out a class action lawsuit filed against Munich Re after two of its subsidiaries refused to pay claims.
The ruling, written by Judge Susan Graber, said the California law trampled on U.S. foreign policy — the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government.
The California Legislature labeled the Armenian deaths as genocide, a term the Turkish government vehemently argued was wrongly applied during a time of civil unrest in the country.
The court noted the issue is so fraught with politics that President Obama studiously avoided using the word genocide during a commemorative speech in April 2010 noting the Armenian deaths.
The tortured legal saga began in 2000 when the California Legislature passed a law enabling Armenian heirs to file claims with insurance companies for policies sold around the turn of the 20th century. It gave the heirs until 2010 to file lawsuits over unpaid insurance benefits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)