LexisNexis Legal News for July 14, 2010

Among the stories on this video edition of LexisNexis Legal News, more challenges to Arizona’s immigration law and the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals denies a motion to stay pending appeal the ruling enjoining the government’s six-month moratorium on offshore drilling operations in the Gulf.

Duration : 0:6:11

Read more about LexisNexis Legal News for July 14, 2010

Bankruptcy Litigation in Usa

  BANKRUPTCY LITIGATION IN USA   INTRODUCTION   A bankruptcy case is a special kind of a civil case, involving people or companies who can no longer pay their debts.   Congress has established a special court, called as the bankruptcy court to adjudicate bankruptcy matters. Bankruptcy protects both the debtors and creditors   HIERARCHY […]

just looking over executive orders and many of them seem unconstitutional, can someone explain this one to me?

Executive Order #11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision. Could this not turn into legal slavery in the wrong hands? Is there something I am missing? If it was for an emergency then why not state that. It seems that they can interpret this however they want. Even if […]

Patient’s Right to Die and Be Placed On Life Support

A Patient’s Right to Die and Be Placed on Life Support Terry Shiavo’s story One of the most blatant episodes of life support struggle, Terry Shiavo’s story was making headlines for many months now as the unconscious woman who for 15 years was living on substances she received from her feeding tube became the focus […]

Dress Code Is New Hot Button For The Houston Schools

School dress codes have been around for decades, but they gained more prominence in schools and are stricter in recent years in response to the permeation of gangs and violence within the schools at all levels. In addition to maintaining modesty within the schools, dress codes now ban gang paraphernalia, colors and symbols; shirts with […]

Cash Gifting Home Business

Don’t know what cash gifting is?   Basically it is freely giving monetary gifts to another party and expecting nothing in return.  Sounds pretty darn crazy doesn’t it?  Why in God’s name would any sane person do that? Let me try and answer those very logical questions.  Have you ever given to a charity such as […]

California Supreme Court -California Case Law

The Second Appellate Court Justices–Steven Z. Perren Kenneth R. Yegan and Arthur Gilbert in their published July 28, 2010 Case Law decision put responsibility for this culvert as stated: “The court found that the Railroad may have been negligent by failing to enlarge the culvert or requiring that its tenant do so.”

OK–Why is this OCSD pipe allowed in this drainage channel? Why is OCSD not Responsible?

Superior Court Judge Teresa Estrada-Mullaney in her February 2, 2009 Judgment Decision “Notice of Judgment” States: “Judge Tangeman determined the flooding problem was “static” for several years prior to Plaintiff’s purchase of his property. Plaintiff contends the flooding is continuous and can be abated. Plaintiff argues Defendants negligent maintenance of the drainage system increases the frequency and severity of the flooding. That is inconsistent with Judge Tangeman’s determination that the primary culprit was POVE’s improvements, rather than negligent maintenance of the drainage system. There was no showing that Union’s operation of Well No. 8 contributed to the blockage. There was no showing of the County’s responsibility for maintaining the drainage channel. There was no evidence that any accumulated debris in State’s right of way contributed to the problems in the operation of the drainage system. County, State, Union or OCSD could not have abated the nuisance by undertaking any maintenance”

Why would the State of California use the State Highway for storm water retention?

Molly Thurmond, ESQ. (SBN 104973) and Thomas A Cregger, ESQ. (SBN 124402) both knew at the time of trial that both had knowledge of these Causation/Date of Stabilization-Photos and Documents,Whitnesses that they withheld from discovery and Judge Martin J. Tangeman! (DURING TRIAL.) Hall, Hieatt & Connely, LLP on July 30, 2008 provided Questionnaires. The color photos above where not provided until December 2, 2008 after trial as previously requested. Dean Benedix, County response No. 2–October 16, 2008 “Response: We will produce copies of the requested attachments and photographs per your request once you have paid the estimated coping costs of $15.00.”
Lou Wheeler photos-Documents showing no flooding prior to 2004 –as viewed by Dean Benedix, Randy Ghezzi, Raleigh Greene, Max Keller, Cliff Howe, Michael Eckman per Dean Benedix statement: “I believe the attached photos are from Lois Wheeler of Oceano 481-5687 D Benedix 6/10/02”
Response No.3 from Dean Benedix After trial regarding documents wittheld from discovery by the County of San Luis Obispo! “We will produce copies of written communications and photos (in Color) Sent by oceano community members to Questa Engineering or the County of San Luis Obispo in regards to flooding in Oceano between 2000-2004 per your request once you have paid the estimated coping costs of $10.00.”

San Luis Obispo County/Union Pacific Railroad Exhibit # 579 photo documents withheld from discovery by County of San Luis Obispo and Union Pacific Rail Road shows Caltrans raising State Highway 1 a foot and the flooding problem on east side of State Highway 1 this created, as stated in the document provided with County 2002 Drainage Study Questionnaire! These color photos where provided December 2, 2008 and are not part of (Appendix 15) showing no Stabilization to this drainage system!

Frustuck v. City of Fairfax (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 345 [28 Cal.Rptr. 357] involved damage caused by an accelerated flow of surface water over newly developed land adjoining plaintiff’s property, collected in an enlarged culvert and sent through plaintiff’s existing ditch. The court noted the basis of the city’s liability was its failure to appreciate the probability that the drainage system from the new development to the Frustuck property, functioning as deliberately conceived, and as altered and maintained by the diversion of waters from their normal channels, would result in some damage to private property. (Id. at p. 362.) The drainage system, which the city had accepted and approved, was a public improvement and it did not matter if the city had not been the one that actually physically diverted the water. (Ibid.) “The fact that the work is performed by a contractor, subdivider or a private owner of property does not necessarily exonerate a public agency, if such contractor, subdivider or owner follows the plans and specifications furnished or approved by the public agency.” (Id. at pp. 362-363.)

The Second Appellate talks about this in Barrett v. County of Ventura–Filed 6/23/

Duration : 0:10:49

Read more about California Supreme Court -California Case Law