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 1401 - 1425 of 1553
Other Materials

Argues Court must vacate judgment and remand because: burden to prove alleged gift's validity or invalidity was placed on plaintiff; confidential relationship imposed presumption of invalidity; failure to apply invalidity presumption was prejudicial; evidence contradicted finding inter vivosgift's were proper and without fraud or undue influence; defendant failed to rebut invalidity presumption

(Intentionally Left Blank)

Oklahoma
Brief of Appellant, 2010, 14 pgs
Other Materials

Argues Court must reverse order because:witnesses other than trial counsel were reqired to testify in probate warranted disqualification; no personal representative conflict of interest existed in probate; children waived right to personal representative objection

(Intentionally Left Blank)

Oklahoma
Other Materials

Argues Court must reverse ruling and remand for trial on the merits because: dismissal was based on appellee's witness's death; appellee was negligent and delayed in preserving its own case

Okla.Stat.tit. 12, §1083

Oklahoma
Other Materials

Argues Court must vacate judgment or, in the alternative, reduce damages because: defendant's motion in limineregarding plaintiff's designated expert's testimony was overruled; insufficient evidence was presented to establish appropriate standard of care; incorrect standard of care was applied; negligence was improperly supported; admissible relevant evidence failed to support award

Okla.Stat.tit. 51, §154(C)

Oklahoma
Other Materials

Argues Court must remand rulings and reverse final order because: appellee was granted default judgment erroneously; appellant's motions to vacate default judgment and motion to reconsider were overruled; appellant was not given notice or opportunity to be heard before attorneys were granted motion to withdraw; appellant's summary judgment motion was overruled

Okla.Stat.tit. 12, §696.3, §1031.1, §1033

Oklahoma
Other Materials

Argues Court must reverse judgment and remand with instructions to dismiss because: testimony by financial advisors, two account officers, and attending physician showed decease's cognitive ability was unimpaired; appellee failed to show decease was incompetent or unduly influenced to establish and manage financial affairs

(Intentionally Left Blank)

Oklahoma
Trial Pleadings

Requests Court enter judgment and rule plaintiff entitled to damages' recovery because: there is no question of material fact as to note's validity; no evidence contradicts liability and causation on elder abuse claim; no evidence contradicts liability and causation on money had and received claim

Or.Rev.Stat. §124.110 and §124.100 to §124.140 and §124.110(1)(a), (1)(b), (b) and §124.100(1)(e)(A), (1)(a) and §124.100 et seq.

Oregon
Complaint for Damages, 2015, 7 pgs
Trial Pleadings

Alleges: First Cause of Action - Elder Financial Abuse; Second Cause of Action - Fraud; Third Cause of Action - Money Had and Received

Or.Rev.Stat. §124.100 and §124.110 and §31.725

Oregon
Complaint , 2015, 23 pgs
Trial Pleadings

Alleges: First Claim for Relief - Malpractice/Negligence; Second Claim for Relief - Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Third Claim for Relief - Elder Abuse; Fourth Claim for Relief - Aiding and Assisting Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Fifth Claim for Relief - Aiding and Assisting Fraud and Converstion

Or.Rev.Stat. §124.100(2), (5), (2)(2)(c), (2)(d), (6), (2)(a), (2)(c) and §63.074(2) and §124.100 and §124.120 and §124.110(1)(a)

Oregon
Complaint, 2015, 5 pgs
Trial Pleadings

Alleges: Action on Debts; Elder Financial Abuse

Or.Rev.Stat. §124.100 and §124.110 and §124.100(2), (2)(a)

Oregon
Complaint, 2015, 11 pgs
Trial Pleadings

Alleges: First Claim for Relief - Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Second Claim for Relief - Rescission - Count 1 - Breach of Fiduciary Dury - Count 2 - Fraud - Count 3 - Undue Influence; Third Claim for Relief - Elder Abuse

Or.Rev.Stat. §125.445 and §124.110 and §124.100(2)(a), (2)(b) and §124.135

Oregon
Complaint, 2015, 22 pgs
Trial Pleadings

Alleges: First Claim for Relief - Count 1 - Violation of Due Process - Count 2 - Violation of Fourth Amendment Right to Be Free From Unreasonable Search and Seizure; Second Claim for Relief - Trespass to Land; Third Claim for Relief - Conversion; Fourth Claim for Relief - Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; Fifth Claim for Relief - Intentional Interference witn Economic Relations; Sixth Claim for Relief - Elder Abuse; Seventh Claim for Relief - Abuse of Process

Or.Rev.Stat. §124.110 and §410.040(7) and §124.100(2)(c)

Oregon
Complaint , 2015, 6 pgs
Trial Pleadings

Alleges: First Claim for Relief - Legal Malpractice; Second Claim for Relief - Elder Financial Abuse

Or.Rev.Stat. §20.160(1)(c) and §87.027 and §87.021 and §87.023 and 701.305 and §124.100 and §124.140 and §124.100(3)(a), (2)(a), (2)(c)

Oregon
Complaint, 2015, 6 pgs
Trial Pleadings

Alleges: First Claim for Relief - Wrongful Death; Second Claim for Relief - Elder Abuse

Or.Rev.Stat. §124.100 et seq. and §124.100(1)(a), (1)(e) and §124.105 and §163.200(1)(a), (1)(b) and §124.100 and Or.Admin.R. 411-086-0010 through 411-086-0360

Oregon
Complaint, 2014, 5 pgs
Trial Pleadings

Alleges: Plaintiff's First Claim for Relief - Elder Abuse/Abuse of a Vulnerable Person; Plaintiff's Second Claim for Relief - Breach of Contract; Plaintiff's Third Claim for Relief - Money Had and Received

Or.Rev.Stat. §124.110 and §124.100(1)(e)(A), (2)(a), (2)(b), (2)© and §41.580(1)(h)(a)

Oregon
Trial Pleadings

Recommends Court order defendants produce outstanding documents because: unredacted Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act protected information for persons complaining of resident's alleged sexual misconduct can lead to admissible evidence; information relating to loans from defendants, latest tax returns, balance sheets, and income statements can inform jury as to how defendants' money is used; CEO's compensation data and documents relating to loans defendants received can be relevant to punitive damages

Or.Rev.Stat. §40.170(3)

Oregon
Trial Pleadings

Requests Court admit motions because: previous marriages are not relevant; eviction attempts' evidence should be excluded; criminal investigation evidence is irrelevant, could be prejudicial or could confuse issues; complaints' outcome is irrelevant or, if relevant, probative value could be prejudicial; lawsuit filing timing is irrelevant; estate value is irrelevant and non-profit status does not exempt defendants from liability; professional backgrounds are irrelevant; relative's residence is irrelevant; Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act excludes personal health information; parties to litigation are dismissed by stipulated motion in limine

Or.Rev.Stat. §124.100(5) and §124.105 and §40.155

Oregon
Trial Pleadings

Recommends Court deny claim because: vulnerable person abuse requires "permitting" intentional conduct; plaintiff failed to show knowledge of specific conduct in presence of that abuse

Or.Rev.Stat. §124.100 and §124.100(5), (2), (4), (2)(b) and §124.105 and §374.010 and §31.730 and §163.670(1) and §163.145(2) and §163.575 and §167.222 and §12.117 and §607.044 and §124.115

Oregon
Trial Pleadings

Requests Court grant summary judgment on liability for elder abuse because: no pleading, deposition, affidavit, declaration or admission on file showed a genuine issue as to any material fact for trial; throughout her residency, seventy-nine year old was incapable of consenting to sexual acts; Adult Protective Services (APS) investigation found defendants guilty of wrongdoing; subsequent APS investigation found defendants failed to safeguard victim

Or.Rev.Stat. §124.105(2), (1)(e), (1)(h), (5) and §124.100 and §214.105 and §163.355 and §163.365 and §163.375 and §163.415 and §163.425 and §163.427 and §163.375(1)(d) and §163.427(1)(a), (C) and §124.100(2), (5), (1)(e)(A) to (D), (1)(a), (1)(c), (1)(d)(A) to (B) and §125.005 and §125.005(5) and §163.315 and §163.315(1)

Oregon
Trial Pleadings

Requests Court deny motion because: vulnerable person abuse is issue of fact; no undisputable evidence shows sexual contact occurred; defendants' role in abuse is a question of fact; seventy-nine year old resident's ability to sexual contact consent is question of fact

Or.Rev.Stat. §124.100 et seq. and §124.100 (1)(e), (5), (1)(e)(A), (1)(e)(C), (4), (2) (1) and §124.105(1), (1)(e), (1)(h) and §124.105 and §125.005(5) and §163.375 and §163.375(1)(b), (1)(e) and §163.415 and §163.427 and §163.427(1)(a)(C) and §163.305(6), (3) and §124.100 and §163.315(1)(b), (1) and §163.315 and §125.105(5)

Oregon
Trial Pleadings

Requests Court deny motion because: motion misrepresents facts; motion violates standard for leave to amend pleadings; claims are substantially different; issues are limited; motion to add claim for punitive damages is improper

Or.Rev.Stat. §742.524 and §742.061 and §31.725(1), (2) and Or.R.Civ.Proc. 23A

Oregon
Trial Pleadings

Alleges: First Counterclaim - Breach of Contract; Second Counterclaim - Breach of Implied Contractual Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Third Counterclaim - Elder Financial Abuse; Fourth Counterclaim - Conversion; Fifth Counterclaim - Intentional Interference with Economic Relations - Count 1 - Against Matt King and Steve King - Count 2 - Against Matt King only; Sixth Couterclaim - Unjust Enrichment

Or.Rev.Stat. §124.100 et seq. and §124.110(a) and §124.100(2)(a), (2)(c) and §20.105

Oregon
Trial Pleadings

Requests Court preclude plaintiffs from offering any program statements, guidelines, goals, or similar evidence because: such materials are irrelevant to issues pled; admission of such evidence is prejudicial to defendant; admission of such evidence confuses and misleads jury; goals have no bearing on conduct; such materials raise issues not pled in complaint

Or.Rev.Stat. §677.095(1)

Oregon
Motions in Limine

Requests Court find Oregon Criminal Mistreatment in the First Degree statute does not require proof victim was permanently deprived money or property (2013)

Or. Rev. Stat. §163.205(1)(b)(D) and §164.015(1)

Oregon
Other Materials

Argues Court affirm trial court denial because factual findings independently justified denial (2013)

Or. Rev. Stat. §125.010(4) and §125.025(1) and §125.055(2)(a) and §125.060(3) and §125.065(4) and §125.075(5) and §125.080(4) and §125.085(3) and §125.300(1) and§125.320 and §125.650 and §174.010 and §441.121 and Ch 125 and Ch 441

Oregon

Pages