Home » Posts tagged "Lawyers"

California San Diego County Driving Constitutional Rights Writ Mandamus Lawyers Attorneys

JAMES V. PEPIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Defendant and Respondent
Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One
July 22, 1969

The Department of Motor Vehicles ordered Plaintiff (James V. Pepin’s) driver’s license suspended for his refusal to submit to any of the blood alcohol tests required by Vehicle Code, section 13353, after he was arrested by an officer who had reasonable cause to believe he was driving while drunk.  Plaintiff brought mandamus in the superior court to compel the DMV to reinstate his driving privileges.  The Superior Court of San Diego County denied the driver’s application for a writ of mandamus to compel defendant Department of Motor Vehicles to reinstate a driving license.  Plaintiff driver sought review the above judgment.

Issues:

Whether the trial Court erred in denying the Plaintiff Writ of Mandamus?
Whether § 13353 violate the driver’s right to equal protection?

Conclusion:

Pepin un-meritoriously asserts that because section 13353 does not permit an exception for “employment-livelihood” cases, similar to that of Vehicle Code, section 13210, he is denied the equal protection of the laws.  The issue is whether section 13353 arbitrarily discriminates against certain classes of persons who refuse to take the chemical test, as opposed to other classes who also refuse the test.  No discrimination exists.  No particular class of person is selected for suspension for refusing a chemical test.

The suspension is mandatory, not discretionary.  Pepin did not have a constitutional right to refuse to take the chemical test.

Hence the Court affirmed the trial Court’s Judgment.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group.  They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions.  The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content

The SRIS Law Group is a law firm with offices in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts.  The law firm assists clients with criminal/traffic defense, family law, immigration, civil litigation, bankruptcy & military law.  The law firm has Virginia offices in Fairfax County, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Loudoun County, Prince William County & Fredericksburg, Virginia.  The Maryland offices are in Montgomery County & Baltimore.  The Massachusetts offices are in Boston & Cambridge.  The New York office is in New York City.  The North Carolina Office is in Charlotte, NC which is in Mecklenburg County.  The California office is in Orange County, CA.

The law firm has more than 11 offices in Virginia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York,California, North Carolina & India to serve the clients of the SRIS Law Group.

 

Article from articlesbase.com

New York Suppress Motion Driving Under Influence Constitutional Rights Denied Lawyers Attorneys

The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. George P. Kelty, Defendant

District Court of New York, First District, Nassau County

June 30, 1978

 

Facts:

Defendant was charged with driving under the influence. Defendant made an omnibus motion to suppress a statement allegedly made by the defendant and the results of a breathalyzer test given to the defendant, on the grounds that it was illegally performed.

Issue:

Whether defendant’s Motion to suppress a statement should be allowed?

Discussion:

The court found that the police had probable cause for the arrest and there was enough evidence for the jury to find that the breathalyzer test was performed within two hours after arrest.  It is clear that there is no constitutional prohibition against giving such a test without defendant’s consent.  Thus, the right of refusal is not a personal privilege but an accommodation to avoid a distasteful struggle to forcibly take blood, breath or saliva.  It is a qualified statutory right whereby the defendant and police may avoid the unpleasantness connected with administering a test to an unwilling subject.  The People have shown the legality of the police action by satisfying the court that they had probable cause for the arrest and performed the test within two hours of arrest.  Since the defendant’s consent is deemed, the People need only show that the test was given, that it was performed after an arrest based upon probable cause and within two hours of that arrest.  In order to sustain his motion to suppress, defendant had the burden of going forward to show that the test was given, even though the defendant refused to take it.  This defendant has failed to do and has not met the burden necessary to suppress a chemical test which he claims he had refused.

Accordingly, the motion to suppress the chemical test is denied.

The court ruled that defendant had the ultimate burden of proving that the evidence should be suppressed. Further, the court held that the state showed the legality of the police action by satisfying the court that they had probable cause for the arrest and performed the test within two hours of arrest. Also, the court found that in order to sustain his motion to suppress defendant had the burden of going forward to show that the test was given, even though defendant refused to take it. The court denied the motion to suppress, concluding that defendant failed to meet the burden necessary to suppress a chemical test which he claimed he had refused.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group.  They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions.  The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

The SRIS Law Group is a law firm with offices in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts.  The law firm assists clients with criminal/traffic defense, family law, immigration, civil litigation, bankruptcy & military law.  The law firm has Virginia offices in Fairfax County, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Loudoun County, Lynchburg County, Prince William County & Fredericksburg, Virginia.  The Maryland offices are in Montgomery County & Baltimore.  The Massachusetts offices are in Boston & Cambridge.  The New York office is in New York City.  The North Carolina Office is in Charlotte, NC which is in Mecklenburg County.  The California office is in Orange County, CA.

The law firm has more than 11 offices in Virginia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, California, North Carolina & India to serve the clients of the SRIS Law Group.

Article from articlesbase.com

North Carolina Criminal Impaired Driving Checkpoint Articulable Suspicion Constitutionally Permissible Lawyers Attorneys

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KAREN SEAGLE FOREMAN
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

On 16 November 1996, defendant was arrested for driving while impaired (DWI), possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of cocaine. Defendant was subsequently indicted for the DWI charge. On 16 September 1997, defendant was found guilty of DWI in District Court, Craven County, and gave notice of appeal to the superior court. On 12 February 1997, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charge because there was no probable cause sufficient to justify the stop of her vehicle or in the alternative, to suppress any evidence obtained from the stop of defendant’s vehicle. The trial court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss or to suppress, and defendant was tried before a jury at the 23 February 1998 Criminal Session of Superior Court, Craven County. The jury found defendant guilty of DWI. On 25 February 1998, the trial court, inter alia, sentenced defendant to a suspended sentence of sixty days in jail with unsupervised probation for two years and revoked her license for one year. Defendant appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.  On appeal, the Court of Appeals found no error.  In support of its decision, the Court of Appeals concluded that it was not constitutionally permissible for an officer to stop a vehicle which had made a legal turn away from a posted DWI checkpoint.

ISSUES:

Whether a legal turn away from a posted DWI checkpoint would justify an investigatory stop and whether it is constitutionally permissible?

DISCUSSION:

When an officer observes conduct which leads him reasonably to believe that criminal conduct may be afoot, he may stop the suspicious person to make reasonable inquiries.  In the instant case, the officer observed a “quick left turn” away from the checkpoint at the precise point where the driver of the vehicle would have first become aware of its presence. However, Officer Ipock did not stop defendant’s vehicle once it turned away from the checkpoint. In fact, we cannot conclude that Officer Ipock “stopped” defendant’s vehicle at any point. Defendant voluntarily parked in a residential driveway and remained hidden in the car until Officer Ipock approached the vehicle. Therefore, defendant was not “seized” by the police officer until at least that point. Based upon that series of incriminating circumstances, the Court concluded that the Court of Appeals correctly determined that Officer Ipock observed sufficient activity to raise a “reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity.

There is no dispute that the DWI checkpoint in the present case met all the statutory requirements for an impaired driving checkpoint. The perimeters of the checkpoint were marked with signs stating that there was a DWI checkpoint ahead, and the signs were posted approximately one-tenth of a mile prior to the actual stop. The checkpoint was established with the intent to stop every vehicle briefly and to check for impaired drivers traveling on Neuse Boulevard within the vicinity of the checkpoint. Certainly, the purpose of any checkpoint and the above statute would be defeated if drivers had the option to “legally avoid,” ignore or circumvent the checkpoint by either electing to drive through without stopping or by turning away upon entering the checkpoint’s perimeters. Further, it is clear that the perimeters of the checkpoint or “the area in which checks are conducted” would include the area within which drivers may become aware of its presence by observation of any sign marking or giving notice of the checkpoint. Therefore, the Court held that it is reasonable and permissible for an officer to monitor a checkpoint’s entrance for vehicles whose drivers may be attempting to avoid the checkpoint, and it necessarily follows that an officer, in conjunction with the totality of the circumstances or the checkpoint plan, may pursue and stop a vehicle which has turned away from a checkpoint within its perimeters for reasonable inquiry to determine why the vehicle turned away.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group.  They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions.  The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content

 

The SRIS Law Group is a law firm with offices in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts.  The law firm assists clients with criminal/traffic defense, family law, immigration, civil litigation, bankruptcy & military law.  The law firm has Virginia offices in Fairfax County, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Loudoun County, Prince William County & Fredericksburg, Virginia.  The Maryland offices are in Montgomery County & Baltimore.  The Massachusetts offices are in Boston & Cambridge.  The New York office is in New York City.  The North Carolina Office is in Charlotte, NC which is in Mecklenburg County.  The California office is in Orange County, CA.

The law firm has more than 11 offices in Virginia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, California, North Carolina & India to serve the clients of the SRIS Law Group.

 

Article from articlesbase.com

More The Constitution Articles

Virginia Highland County Prior Conviction Reckless Driving Constitutional Right Lawyers Attorney

CLEM KINCAID v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Supreme Court of Virginia
December 1, 1958

The defendant, Kincaid was convicted in the circuit court on April 23, 1957, of reckless driving. Later he was again, charged with reckless driving. He was tried and convicted of this latter charge on November 6, 1957, and the judgment entered on that conviction is the subject of this appeal. During the course of the trial the Commonwealth introduced evidence of the previous conviction (April 23, 1957), which evidence was admitted over the objection of the accused wherein he asserted that the evidence was inadmissible as the warrant on which he was being tried did not charge a second offense. In instructing the jury, over the objection of the accused, the court set forth the penalties for a second offense of reckless driving, and the jury imposed a fine as permitted under the instruction and as provided in the statute (Code, § 46-210 as amended; now § 46.1-192, 1958 Cum. Supp.) for a second offense. The accused moved to set aside the verdict as contrary to the law and without evidence to support it, and further urged the court to grant him a new trial on the ground that the court erred in permitting the introduction of evidence relating to the previous conviction. These motions were overruled and judgment was entered on the jury’s verdict. The defendant sought review of the decision.

Issues:

Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence relating to the previous conviciction?
Whether a defendant in a criminal case can be taxed with the costs of a jury without invading his constitutional right to trial by jury?”

Discussion:

This court held that it was error for the court to admit the evidence relating to the prior conviction and to instruct the jury regarding the punishment for a second offense. In this case the warrant simply charged that the accused did unlawfully operate a motor vehicle on the public road in a reckless manner and did not charge him for a second offense. Thus he should have been put on trial for the offense as charged and no other this court held that under the evidence, the issues involving the identity of the accused and whether or not he was guilty of reckless driving were for the determination of the jury

This court held there is no merit in the contention that the taxing of the costs of the jury is an invasion of the constitutional right of the accused to a trial by juryCode, § 19-296 imposes upon the clerk of the court the duty to make up a “statement of all the expenses incident to the prosecution” and issue an execution therefore. The costs of a jury are an expense incident to the prosecution, and its collection violates no constitutional right of the accused.

Conclusion:

The court reversed the judgment of the trial court, which convicted the defendant of reckless driving and overruled his motions to set aside the verdict and for a new trial. The court remanded the case for a new trial.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group.  They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions.  The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content

 

The SRIS Law Group is a law firm with offices in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts.  The law firm assists clients with criminal/traffic defense, family law, immigration, civil litigation, bankruptcy & military law.  The law firm has Virginia offices in Fairfax County, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Loudoun County, Lynchburg County, Prince William County & Fredericksburg, Virginia.  The Maryland offices are in Montgomery County & Baltimore.  The Massachusetts offices are in Boston & Cambridge.  The New York office is in New York City.  The North Carolina Office is in Charlotte, NC which is in Mecklenburg County.  The California office is in Orange County, CA.

The law firm has more than 11 offices in Virginia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, California, North Carolina & India to serve the clients of the SRIS Law Group.

Article from articlesbase.com

Alex is live for the first two hours of the broadcast. He will talk about the unconstitutional effort by Congress and Obama to force through health care using “deem and pass” without a vote by the Senate. Obama, Congress, and Treason Against the Constitution Kurt Nimmo www.infowars.com March 19, 2010 On Thursday, Robert Gibbs, Obamas press secretary, responded to a question about the so-called Slaughter Rule (named after Rep. Slaughter, who sits on the rules committee) that will be used by Democrats to force through Obamas totalitarian care bill, probably over the weekend. Gibbs answer was deliberately opaque. By not addressing the question, he essentially said deem and pass will be used in the future to enact unpopular legislation, including a bill that will legalize millions of illegal immigrants. It is now official — the Constitution is dead. It may as well be used to wrap fish. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution requires that both houses of Congress hold recorded yea-or-nay votes on a bill before it can be presented to the president for his signature and before it can become law. Obama approves of sabotaging the Constitution. He said he does not spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are, in other words violating the spirit and law of the Constitution is not a biggie for him. What I can tell you is that the vote thats taken in the House will be a vote for health care reform. And if people vote yes, whatever form that takes, that is going to
Video Rating: 4 / 5

Find More The Constitution Articles

La Quinta Business Lawyer?s Top Ten Things That Sarah Palin Would Change About the Constitution

Here is La Quinta Business Lawyer Sebastian Gibson’s Top Ten:

1.The Vice President is in charge of the Senate.

 

2. The President must be a woman.

 

3. No more interviews of politicians.

 

4. The democratic party is outlawed.

 

5. Only one news channel – Fox News.

 

6. Any more fake calls from disc jockeys pretending to be the President of France and Canada is out of NAFTA, whatever those initials stand for in the constitution.

 

7. All turkeys are pardoned.

 

8. Snowmobiles should be used in place of cars throughout the U.S.

 

9. Anytime a woman is elected governor in Alaska, she automatically becomes the President two years later.

 

10. Rewrite the whole darn constitution with PTA moms in charge this time.

 

Now here is everything (well, almost everything) you need to know in businessabout environmental, international law, election and campaign law, consumer law, class actions, constitutional, internet, publishing, advertising, media, food and wine, hotel and restaurant law, estate planning, wills, trusts, water law, agricultural, insurance law, bad faith, psychologist and psychotherapist defense, education law and child accidents.

You can also find all you need to know (well, mostly) in business about personal injury, car accidents, brain damage, wrongful deaths, business, real estate, landlord-tenant, homeowners association law, construction, patents, trademarks, corporations, entertainment law, advertising, copyrights, and litigation by searching for those subjects and adding the words La Quinta business lawyer or La Quinta business attorney to your search terms and looking for other articles by Sebastian Gibson.

 

You can also learn more about any of these business areas of law and how we can assist you as La Quinta business attorneys, or as lawyers in any city, by calling the Law Offices of R. Sebastian Gibson at any of the numbers which can be found on our website at http://www.SebastianGibsonLaw.com  .

 

1. Environmental and Toxic Tort Law in La Quinta – With multi-billion dollar energy companies spending more money to confuse the public on the threat posed by global warming than on research into alternative forms of energy, it will take all of us to sort fact from fiction and solve the growing problem of global warming. An additional danger to all of us comes from exposure to toxic materials in our daily lives from tainted food, to contaminated ground water, to dangerous viruses in the public and in hospitals to lead and mercury poisoning. If you experience unusual symptoms that a doctor can’t explain, you may have been exposed to a toxic substance and have a toxic tort claim that should be evaluated by us or another qualified La Quinta environmental attorney.

 

2. La Quinta International, Shipping and Maritime Law – A La Quinta international attorney with years of international legal education and experience such as you’ll find at our La Quinta law firm, can provide you with a wealth of practical knowledge and the ability to find answers to your international law questions. It is to your advantage to also have a La Quinta international lawyer working in cooperation with foreign counsel in other jurisdictions to ensure that the most cost-effective avenues are pursued to resolve your legal matter. However, many international matters can be resolved with letters between La Quinta international lawyers and foreign lawyers, and international mediations and arbitrations can also be utilized. If you have been injured on a ship or an oil rig you have rights under the Jones Act to be compensated for your injuries, medical treatment, past and future wage loss and care.

 

3. La Quinta Election and Campaign Finance Law – If you are considering running for political office or have already done so and are facing campaign finance legal issues, the time to hire a La Quinta election attorney with election law knowledge is at the first possible opportunity before you get into hot water that can sink your campaign or put your political career into jeopardy.

 

4. La Quinta Consumer Law and Class Actions – If you have paid for an item but have not received it, been promised an action or service that has not come to fruition or are considering ordering services or signing any type of agreement, the time to hire a La Quinta consumer lawyer is immediately in order to avoid being scammed, or defrauded. A La Quinta consumer attorney’s letter drafted forcefully but professionally will obtain the desired result, products or services in a good percentage of cases. Whether you ordered gold bars but did not receive them, were told that your car would be paid off when you traded it in on a new one or were promised that a pool would be completed in your back yard, a La Quinta consumer attorney can and should be hired for a modest fee to write a letter on your behalf and demand the required action, products or services. If you think you are just one of many who have been scammed or defrauded in some way, you may have a class action.

 

5. Constitutional, Publishing and Publicity and Privacy Rights, Internet Law, Advertising and Media Law in La Quinta – Defamation includes both libel and slander. Anyone in the media or publishing or broadcast world or with a web site is at risk of a lawsuit for claims of defamation or false advertising However, constitutional law questions also arise in civil rights discrimination cases, discrimination in employment and a wide variety of other legal matters. If you have been disenfranchised or your constitutional rights abused in any matter or if you have been accused of abusing the rights of others, contact a La Quinta constitutional lawyer as soon as it occurs. If others seek to profit with the use of your name or image you also have a claim for damages.

 

6. Food and Wine Law, Hotel and Restaurant Law in La Quinta – Today, hotels, restaurants, nightclubs, bars and grocery stores face an ever increasing host of new regulations they never faced previously. From the usual licensing problems they face with the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control for adherence to and violations of ABC rules, to new state regulations involving menus and calorie counts in fast food restaurants and new rules requiring groceries to show the country of origin in labels on most of their produce and meat. The worst case scenario today for an establishment serving alcohol, is to serve a minor alcohol who later dies in an auto accident. Such an establishment will need legal representation by a La Quinta food, alcohol and restaurant lawyer before the ABC as well as legal defense of civil lawsuits filed against it.

 

7. La Quinta Estate Planning, Wills and Trusts – The current estate tax in 2008 affects only people who die with an estate in excess of two million dollars. In 2009, that amount will increase to three and a half million dollars and in 2010, the estate tax is repealed. That’s the good news. If, however, the estate tax repeal is not extended by 2011, the estate tax will kick in again. The worse news is that in 2011, if the estate tax repeal is not extended, the estate tax will kick in at one million dollars. The current federal estate tax rate is a whopping 47 percent. That stays the same in 2009. But other current provisions in the tax code change or end in 2010. In light of this, it is more important than ever to hire a La Quinta estate planning lawyer to draft your will and evaluate the need for a living trust to avoid probate fees ensure your estate goes to the beneficiaries you want it to go to. If you don’t have a will or trust at death, the state will determine who gets your estate, but it will usually be your spouse and children, of if you have none, your closest relatives.

 

8. Water, Agricultural and Natural Resource Law in La Quinta – It is hoped by American farmers and meat producers that the new Country of Origin Labeling Law taking effect in groceries will cause food shoppers to seek meat and produce from the U.S. over food items from other countries. But it is the water shortage in California that has California farmers faced with dire consequences. In 2008, the California Governor formed a Water Bank to stave off mandatory water rationing, but if California has another dry winter, or more fires that draw upon California’s precious water reserves, or if the state legislature does not address the state’s delta environmental problems and expand the state’s water works, with a bill that has been tied up while the legislators haggled over a budget, rationing across the state could become a reality. If you have a water or agricultural issue, the time to call a La Quinta agricultural lawyer with knowledge in this areas is before the issue becomes critical.

 

9. Insurance Law, Bad Faith, Psychologist, Psychiatrist and Psychotherapist Defense in La Quinta – As insurance companies feel the pain of the stock market crash and face the reality of the value of their own investments decreasing, we expect to see insurance companies delaying settlements, and flirting with violations of the insurance bad faith statutes. As the public becomes more and more depressed with the sinking stock market, loss of jobs, reduced income and less enjoyment out of life, we also see the likelihood of greater use of psychiatrists, psychologists and psychotherapists. When claims are made against these professionals without justification, our La Quinta law firm stands ready to defend them

 

10. La Quinta Education Law and Child Accidents – A recent court ruling in California has given temporary relief to parents homeschooling their children. However, we still expect further court rulings to make guidelines that will govern when or under what circumstances homeschooling of children will be permitted in California. Children, as any parent knows, can be injured any time, anywhere. What should not happen is any injury to a child that is the result of the negligence of another. To that end, our La Quinta personal injury lawyers championed protection for children and convinced at least one court and encouraged other personal injury attorneys to do the same, to uphold a new tort for negligent endangerment of a child.

 

If you have a legal matter in La Quinta, Palm Springs, Palm Desert, Coachella, Rancho Mirage, Indio, Indian Wells, Cathedral City, Desert Hot Springs, Thermal, Yucca Valley, Joshua Tree, Twentynine Palms or anywhere in the Coachella Valley, our La Quinta law firm has the knowledge and resources to be your La Quinta Lawyers and your La Quinta Attorneys. Be sure to hire a Coachella Valley law firm with experience in Personal Injury, Car Accidents, Drownings, Brain Damage, Catastrophic Injuries, Wrongful Death, Business, Real Estate and Landlord Tenant Law, Homeowner Association Law, Construction, Trademarks, Patents, Corporations, Entertainment, Sports Law, Marketing, Advertising, Media, and Copyright Law, and who will endeavor to ensure that your rights are properly represented.

 

Additionally, if you have a legal matter which involves Environmental and Toxic Tort Law, Litigation, International, Shipping and Maritime Law, Employment, Election and Campaign Finance Law, Consumer Law and Class Actions, Constitutional, Publishing, Publicity, Privacy Rights, Internet Law, Advertising and Media Law, Food and Wine Law, Hotel and Restaurant Law, Estate Planning, Wills and Trusts, Water, Agricultural and Natural Resource Law, Insurance Law, Bad Faith and Psychiatrist and Psychotherapist Defense, Education Law or a Child Accident in La Quinta or anywhere in Southern California, call the Law Offices of R. Sebastian Gibson, or visit our website at http://www.SebastianGibsonLaw.com  and learn how a La Quinta attorney from our offices can assist you.

The Sebastian Gibson Business Law Firm serves La Quinta, Palm Springs, Palm Desert, Coachella, Rancho Mirage, Indio, Indian Wells, Cathedral City, Desert Hot Springs, Thermal, Yucca Valley, Joshua Tree, Twentynine Palms, the entire Coachella Valley and all of Southern California. We stand ready to assist you with any type of Personal Injury, Car Accidents, Motorcycle Accidents, Truck Accidents, Dog Bites, Drownings, Brain Damage, Catastrophic Injuries, Wrongful Death, Business, Real Estate and Landlord Tenant Law, Homeowner Association Law, Construction, Trademarks, Patents, Corporations, Entertainment, Sports Law, Marketing, Advertising, Media, and Copyright Law matter.


Visit our website at http://www.sebastiangibsonlaw.com if you have a legal matter of any kind. We have the knowledge and resources to represent you as your La Quinta Business Lawyer and La Quinta Business Attorney for Environmental and Toxic Tort Law, Litigation, International, Shipping and Maritime Law, Employment, Election and Campaign Finance Law, Consumer Law and Class Actions, Constitutional, Publishing, Publicity, Privacy Rights, Internet Law, Advertising and Media Law, Food and Wine Law, Hotel and Restaurant Law, Estate Planning, Wills and Trusts, Water, Agricultural and Natural Resource Law, Insurance Law, Bad Faith and Psychiatrist and Psychotherapist Defense, Education Law and Child Accidents.

Article from articlesbase.com

Related The Constitution Articles