Elder Justice Prosecutor Samples

Find publicly-filed, sample elder abuse federal and state pleadings and documents. PACER citations have been provided where available.
YYYY
YYYY
Showing results 276 - 300 of 1553
Trial Pleadings

Recommends Court grant motion because there are no material facts at issue: elements of promissory estoppel are present; the pension is a valid unilateral contract

Sup.Ct.Civ.R. 8(a)

District Of Columbia
Other Materials

Argues Court must hold plaintiff's memorandum is not evidence of duty of care negligence because memorandum fails to offer legal support for argument WMATA had an existing duty to ensure an elderly passenger remained seated before moving the bus

(Intentionally Left Blank)

District Of Columbia
Trial Pleadings

Requests Court dismiss complaint with prejudice because allegations fail to: support exception to employment-at-will doctrine; state claim under District of Columbia Human Rights Act; state claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress; assert claim for negligent hiring and supervision

(Intentionally Left Blank)

District Of Columbia
Trial Pleadings

Recommends Court deny motion and approve petition for cy pres because: movants are not qualified to assert the public interest; movants lack standing to require a financial accounting or to remove directors; proposed transactions would jeopardize and degrade the Corcoran

D.C. Code §19-1301.03 and §19-1304.05, 13 and §29-401.02(24), .05, .22 and §29-406.09 and §29-410.01, .03 and §29-411.02 and D.C. Code art. 29, Ch. 4

District Of Columbia
Joint Pretrial Statement, 2013, 10 pgs
Other Materials

Petitioner and Respondent state to Court: certification of rule 16(c) meeting; parties and counsel; nature of case; claims/defenses; undisputed issues/stipulation; disputed issues; requested stipulations; relief sought; citations; pending motions; witnesses; exhibits; deposition testimony; pleadings and discovery responses; demonstrative or physical evidence; videotapes; joint voir dire questions; jury instructions; non-standard jury instructions requested; verdict forms; settlement positions; estimated trial length

(Intentionally Left Blank)

District Of Columbia
Complaint, 2013, 6 pgs
Trial Pleadings

Alleges: general negligence; negligence per-se; negligent hiring and selection; negligent training; common law negligent supervision, training and hiring; gross negligence; requests judgment against defendant, compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs

D.C. Code §11-921 and §13-422 and §13-423(a)(3) and D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 18 §2100.4

District Of Columbia
Brief of Appellant, 2013, 12 pgs
Other Materials

Argues Court must remand case for summary judgment or, in the alternative, discovery and trial on the merits because: dismissal of all counts in amended complaint was in error; contract's terms support appellee's breach of contract; benefits of dubiousness must be given for ambiguous and discretionary contract clauses

D.C. Code §28-3502 and §28:2-202 and §28-201(1) and §28:2-201(3) and D.C. Civ. Proc. Code §12(b)(6)

District Of Columbia
Reply Brief of Appellant, 2012, 11 pgs
Other Materials

Agues Court must reverse order because Lower Court erred granting summary judgment on: borrowers' fraud claims; borrowers' Consumer Protections Procedures Act claims; borrowers' conspiracy claims and association's CPPA claims

D.C. Code §28-3904(f) and §28-3905(b), (k) and §42-1902

District Of Columbia
Other Materials

Argues Court must reverse trial court decision and dismiss or deny cross-appeal because: citations of law are inapplicable to defective foreclosure notice; Consumer Protection Precedures Act citation is out of date; notice of cross-appeal failed to specify final order for appeal; affiant was not competent for affidavit to be considered for summary judgment; Deed of Appointment was legally insufficient; substitute trustees were not appointed and lacked authority

D.C. Code §11-721(b) and §28-3904 and §28-3905(k)(1) and §42-101 and §42-404 and §42-405 and §42-803 and §42-814(a) and §42-1017 and §47-1431 and §47-1432 and §47-1433 and D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 9 §3100.1 and §3100.9 and §3100.10 and D.C. App. R. 3(c) and Super. Ct. Civ. R 10(c) and 16(c)(3) and 56(e)

District Of Columbia
Brief of Appellee, 2012, 13 pgs
Other Materials

Argues Court must affirm Superior Court's judgment because: trial court did not err admitting appellant's videotaped interview; trial court did not participate in plea negotiations; trial court's conduct was not judicially vindictive; evidence supported appellant's convictions

D.C. Code §22-404 and §22-404(a)(1) and §22-4514(b) and D.C. Crim. Jury Inst. §6.503 and Super. Ct. Crim. R. 11(e)(1) and 16 and 16(a)(1)(A), (d)(2)

District Of Columbia
Brief of Appellee, 2012, 16 pgs
Other Materials

Argues Superior Court judgment must be affirmed after case is remanded so trial court can vacate appellant's convictions for second-degree murder, first degree armed burglary and associated PFCV convictions because there was only one killing and robbery was predicate for murder

D.C. Code §22-801(a) and §22-2101 and §22-2801 and §22-3211 and §22-3212(a) and §22-3601 and §22-3601(a) and §22-4502 and §22-4504(a), (b)

District Of Columbia
Other Materials

Argues Court of Appeals must reverse Superior Court judgment and remand case because: Consumer Protection Procedures Act does not require a common law or fiduciary duty; D.C. City Council intended to pass a law broader than common law; Criminal Federal Securities Law does not apply to CPPA; Court erred applying Maryland Law on duty

D.C. Code §28-3901 and §28-3904 and §28-3905

District Of Columbia
Brief for Appellant, 2011, 24 pgs
Other Materials

Argues Court must reverse convictions and remand case for new trial or, in the alternative, remand case for hearing on disqualification factors because: procedures' implementation was prejudicial to appellant's defenses; application of Bethea v. United States denied appellant's rights; appellant was prevented from eliciting expert's opinion; appellant's rebuttal evidence was disallowed; convictions violate appellant's right to bear arms

D.C. Code §22-1810 and §22-301 and §22-402 and §22-4504(b) and §22-4514(b) and §7-2502.01 and §7-2506.01(3) and §22-2101 and D.C. Crim. Jury Inst 5.08 and 5.07

District Of Columbia
Trial Pleadings

Alleges unlawful trade practices, violations of District of Columbia Municipal Regulations, breach of contract; requests: recession of contracts; return of all payments; return of all repair and replacement costs; treble damages; interest; punitive damages; or, in the alternative, compensatory, incidential and consequential damages for breach of contract; attorney's fees and costs; jury trial

D.C. Code Ann. §13-423(a) and §28-3901(a)(2), (a)(3) and §28-3904(e), (f), (r)(5), (dd), (n) and §28-2905(k)(i) and D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 16 §813.3(i) and §808.3, .4, .6 and tit. 18 §800.1 and tit. 16 §800.1 and §808.4 and §808.5 and §808.6 and §813.3(h), (l)

District Of Columbia
Criminal Case Materials

Alleges vulnerable adult abuse. Affirms allegations and evidentiary information. Order issues arrest warrant (2007)

D.C. Code §22_933

District Of Columbia
Criminal Case Materials

Alleges criminal neglect of vulnerable adult. Order issues arrest warrant based on affirmation and evidentiary information. Court finds caregiver guilty. Court imposes: 100 days in jail; 5 years supervised probation; defendant cannot be employed by or come in contact with any vulnerable persons; $50 Victims of Violent Crimes Compensation due 6 months after release (2007)

D.C. Code §22_934

District Of Columbia
Criminal Case Materials

Affirms probable cause to issue arrest warrant for caregiver based on evidentiary information obtained during abuse of a vulnerable adult investigation (2006)

D.C. Codes §22_932 and §22_933

District Of Columbia
Criminal Case Materials

Alleges sexual acts or conduct without vulnerable adults' consent by certified nursing assistant. Affirms evidentiary information. Order issues arrest warrants based on probable cause. Court finds caregiver guilty: 2 counts Attempted Sex Abuse; 2 counts Simple Assault. Court imposes: 200 days consecutive jail time; 3 years concurrent probation; $200 Victims of Violent Crime Compensation due July 5, 2007 (2006)

D.C. Code §22_3006

District Of Columbia
Criminal Case Materials

Alleges criminal theft from senior citizen. Affirms interviews, facts, circumstances. Requests court issue arrest warrant (2005)

D.C. Codes §22_3601 and §22_3211

District Of Columbia
Criminal Case Materials

Affirms request court issue arrest warrant for caregiver. Court finds caregiver guilty and imposes: 20 day jail sentence; 2 year therapist supervised probation with no vulnerable adult employment; no contact with former facility or employees; $50 Victims of Violent Crime Compensation; $500 fine due 6 months after jail release (2004)

D.C. Codes §22_932 and §22_933

District Of Columbia
Other Materials

Argues Court must dismiss counterclaims with projudice and declare Delaware Irrevocable Trust valid and enforceable because: Trust was properly created and funded; defendant lacks authority to maintain claims; Connecticut Probate Court lacks jurisdiction over Delaware Trust and assets

Del. Code Ann. tit. 6 §8-110 and 12 §3904

Delaware
Trial Pleadings

Because financial abuse was contested by all four respondents and their position on this motion is unknown, requests Court: substitute estate as party for adjudication; recognize attorney's authority to act on estate's behalf; allow cause of action to continue

Del. Code Ann. tit. 10 §3701 et seq.

Delaware
Trial Pleadings

Requests Court: deny motion to stay discovery; grant motion to modify scheduling order; allow summary judgment (2014)

Del. Code Ann. 10 §8106 and Del. Ch. Rule 26

Delaware
Other Materials

Argues Court must deny petition and grant joint tenancy bank accounts with rights of survivorship because: undue influence has not been established; petitioners failed to present evidence power of attorney was misused; estate assets were not improperly seized or disposed

Del. Code Ann. tit. 25 §701 and tit. 12 §49A et seq. and Del.R.Evid 301

Delaware
Other Materials

Argues Court must grant opening brief proposal because: deposit accounts were not joint; undue influence was exercised to retitle assets; power of attorney was used improperly; assets were seized and disposed improperly

Del. Code Ann. tit. 25 §701 and tit. 12 §1301

Delaware

Pages