By Omid Rejali
Recently I had the pleasure of representing a client who had been dropped by his former attorney. The issue evolved around a judgment that was obtained against him back in 2002. The main reason that no one wanted to take on this clients case was because he was a felon. That issue did not worry me one bit because I believed what the client was telling me and it was irrelevant to the issues at hand.
I initially attempted to resolve the matter informally with the attorney who had obtained the judgment against my client. He laughed at me and mocked my client by calling him a felon. That did not sit well with me.
The main issue evolved around a proof of service that alleged that my client had been "personally" served. All proof of servic...
EQUAL AND MEANINGFUL
By: S.J. Walker
It has long been established that one of the main goals of
the legal system is to provide equal access to the judicial process. It is
clear that “equal access” is continuing to be defined and challenged on a
constant basis as we thrive to ensure “equal access” is also “meaningful access.”
In the recent California Supreme Court decision in Jameson v. Desta, the Court found that
San Diego County’s policy on court reporters was invalid because it did not
provide an exception for indigent people. In Jameson v. Desta, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the
trial court for a nonsuit in favor of Defendant. Plaintiff, an indigent, who
Today, June 26, 2018 the Supreme Court of The United States
Ruled that President Trump’s Travel Ban was constitutional. You can read the
full text of the decision here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
What Does this Mean?
The Court was faced with the question of whether President
Trump’s Travel Ban was constitutional and within his authority. The Court held,
that President Trump’s actions were constitutional because they were connected
to a legitimate concern of the government, namely national security and that
the means (i.e. the travel ban) were sufficiently tied to achi...
The California Court of Appeal held today that a Plaintiff is allowed to treat with doctors on liens, even if he/she was insured at the time of the accident.
This is an extremely important ruling for plaintiffs because it allows them to recover the full amount of money that they owe to their doctors when they treat on liens and solidifies their due process right to choose their own medical treatment.
The court of appeal reasoned that there could be many reasons why a plaintiff may choose to treat on a lien basis (this is when doctors choose to treat a plaintiff without getting paid, and would subsequently get paid after the plaintiffs case is over), for example because "plaintiffs generally make their health insurance choices before they are injured. These cho...
On Tuesday April 17, 2018, the United States Supreme Court struck down the definition of "crime of violence" as unconstitutionally vague. This is an extremely important decision for undocumented immigrants or green card holders because it will limit the number of cases the Department of Homeland Security will be able to file.
Prior to this decision under the immigration and national act ("Act"), crimes that were considered to be a "crime of violence" would make an alien deportable. The Supreme Courts Decision in effect holds that section of the Act unconstitutional because it does not give defendants a fair notice of what crimes exactly have a substantial risk.
This is a huge victory in light of the current administrations attempts to place as many immigrants ...