Hays McConn http://www.haysmcconn.com/en/rss Hays McConn RSS Feed. Hays McConn http://www.haysmcconn.com/tresources/en/images/icons/tendenci34x15.gif http://www.haysmcconn.com Copyright 2008 Hays McConn Tendenci Association Software by Schipul - The Web Marketing Company en-us noemail@haysmcconn.com Fri, 16 May 2008 15:17:59 GMT Articles http://www.haysmcconn.com/en/art/?3 After an adverse verdict or ruling, the thoughts of clients and their counsel naturally turn to the court of appeals and the potential for relief in that forum. Hollywood movies and television will occasionally even show lawyers taking a verbal notice of appeal just after the jury verdict is announced. However, in the real world, careful thought should be given to filing a formal notice of appeal. This is true for two reasons. First, trial courts often let issues which likely should be resolved as a matter of law go to the jury in hopes that the jury will sort it out. In the logic of many trial judges, it is easier to justify denying relief as a matter of law after both parties have had their day in court than via summary judgment or directed verdict. Thus, a post-verdict motion will allow the trial court one last chance to grant relief on issues that could have been disposed of before trial but were not. Certainly, a motion to the trial court is a less time-consuming and less... <br><br>16-Nov-07 12:00 PM Going Through the Motions: Steps to Consider Before Your Notice of Appeal After an adverse verdict or ruling, the thoughts of clients and their counsel naturally turn to the court of appeals and the potential for relief in that forum. Hollywood movies and television will occasionally even show lawyers taking a verbal notice of appeal just after the jury verdict is announced. However, in the real world, careful thought should be given to filing a formal notice of appeal. This is true for two reasons. First, trial courts often let issues which likely should be resolved as a matter of law go to the jury in hopes that the jury will sort it out. In the logic of many trial judges, it is easier to justify denying relief as a matter of law after both parties have had their day in court than via summary judgment or directed verdict. Thus, a post-verdict motion will allow the trial court one last chance to grant relief on issues that could have been disposed of before trial but were not. Certainly, a motion to the trial court is a less time-consuming and less... http://www.haysmcconn.com/en/art/?3 Fri, 16 Nov 2007 18:00:00 GMT Articles http://www.haysmcconn.com/en/art/?2 Everyone involved in the handling or defense of construction defect claims is aware that arbitration is a common method of resolution of such claims. However, their is an all too common sequel to the hard-fought arbitration hearing when it becomes time to confirm or enforce the award at the courthouse. Unhappy parties to the arbitration, in an attempt to fish for evidence of one of the few reasons an award can be disturbed, may attempt to serve discovery in the trial court to the arbitrator, the members of the arbitration panel, or the dispute resolution provider itself. The common target of this discovery is evidence of an allegedly undisclosed conflict of interest on the part of the arbitrator. When this happens, counsel for the successful party should be familiar with the wide-range of legal authority which indicates such discovery is improper. For example, Courts have refused to allow the parties to an arbitration proceeding to call an arbitrator as a witness to testify by... <br><br>16-Nov-07 10:00 AM Limits on Discovery to Arbitrators and Dispute Resolution Providers Everyone involved in the handling or defense of construction defect claims is aware that arbitration is a common method of resolution of such claims. However, their is an all too common sequel to the hard-fought arbitration hearing when it becomes time to confirm or enforce the award at the courthouse. Unhappy parties to the arbitration, in an attempt to fish for evidence of one of the few reasons an award can be disturbed, may attempt to serve discovery in the trial court to the arbitrator, the members of the arbitration panel, or the dispute resolution provider itself. The common target of this discovery is evidence of an allegedly undisclosed conflict of interest on the part of the arbitrator. When this happens, counsel for the successful party should be familiar with the wide-range of legal authority which indicates such discovery is improper. For example, Courts have refused to allow the parties to an arbitration proceeding to call an arbitrator as a witness to testify by... http://www.haysmcconn.com/en/art/?2 Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:00:00 GMT