Impleaded by plaintiff I'm currently a 1L and asked my civ pro professor, but have yet to get a response. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a)(2)(C,D), an impleaded party may assert claims against the plaintiff. Suppose the defendant makes a counterclaim and the plaintiff impleads a third party. Can that third party assert claims against the defendant? Looking at the language of 14(a)(2), it doesn't seem so, and 14(b) doesn't say that the 14(a) applies to it. (b) When a Plaintiff May Bring in a Third Party. When a claim is asserted against a plaintiff, the plaintiff may bring in a third party if this rule would allow a defendant to do so.
The Plaintiff can't implead a third party. If the Plaintiff amends its complaint to join a new party to the case, that new party is a defendant, and as such, may assert counterclaims against the Plaintiff and crossclaims against any co-defendant in the case. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14 applies to third-party complaints brought by defendants who sue third-parties, not to first party complaints brought by plaintiffs against newly joined parties. FRCP 14(a)(2)(B) provides that the Third-Party Defendant may bring counterclaims against the defendant who filed the Third-Party Complaint. FRCP 14(a)(2)(C) and(D) provides that the Third-Party Defendant may bring claims against and assert affirmative defenses against the Plaintiff who sued the Third-Party Defendant, even though the Plaintiff didn't itself sue the Third-Party Defendant. There is a question upon which FRCP 14 is silent, however. Can a third-party defendant in a case brought by a defendant/third-party plaintiff bring claims against co-defendants of the defendant/third-party plaintiff that sued the third-party defendant? The rule does not expressly authorize such a quasi-cross-claim. But, in practice, by hook or by crook, most federal court judges would allow a third-party defendant to do so by some means, although without so prolonged research I couldn't tell you exactly how that would be justified. Perhaps, the third-party defendant would bring a (second order) third-party complaint against other defendants in the case. Likewise, an existing co-defendant in the case could probably bring a third-party complaint against the third-party defendant already sued by their co-defendant.
CNBC's explanation is simply wrong. The law says that a vaccine manufacturer is immune from suit and liability under Federal and State law with respect to all claims for loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration to or the use by an individual of a covered countermeasure if a declaration under subsection (b) has been issued and there was a declaration under subsection (b). This immunity is not conditioned either way by being approved, indeed the declaration states To be a Covered Countermeasure, qualified pandemic or epidemic products or security countermeasures also must be approved or cleared under the FD&amp;C Act; licensed under the PHS Act; or authorized for emergency use under Sections 564, 564A, or 564B of the FD&amp;C Act The liability immunity is not perpetual, the declaration says: Liability immunity for Covered Countermeasures administered and used in accordance with the public health and medical response of the Authority Having Jurisdiction begins with a Declaration and lasts through (1) the final day the emergency Declaration is in effect, or (2) October 1, 2024, whichever occurs first. That doesn't mean that there can't be another declaration in the future. Immunity of a manufacturer to liability is not related to a patient being &quot;covered&quot;. There are other ways in which a patient could be &quot;covered&quot;. One of them is the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program and the other is the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which presently redirects you to CICP.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. One can be served according to the state law or: (2) doing any of the following: (A) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally; (B) leaving a copy of each at the individual’s dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there; or (C) delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized None of those would apply to your facts. Thus you would have to find some jurisdiction that would allow service of process under your fact. I dare say that none will and that due process would come into play. In NJ, due process applies and service may be made (1) Upon a competent individual of the age of 14 or over, by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the individual personally, or by leaving a copy thereof at the individual's dwelling place or usual place of abode with a competent member of the household of the age of 14 or over then residing therein, or by delivering a copy thereof to a person authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process on the individual's behalf; It has to be the current place of abode.
No In general, there is no need for a plaintiff, defendant, or witness to attend court in person if there is a legitimate impediment to them doing so. Parties can be represented by their lawyers, testimony can be made by affidavit, cross-examination can be conducted over Zoom. During the recent pandemic, entire cases, both criminal and civil have been dealt with without anyone meeting up in person.
This answer is under United States law. Usually, when a court interprets the law in a way that was previously ambiguous, parties are not given any leniency for not knowing in advance how an issue will be resolved. Sometimes, when a court overrules prior precedent with a new precedent the court will grant some leniency, if there is an easy way to do so. For example, in the Colorado case of Warne v. Hall, 2016 CO 50, the Colorado Supreme Court made the level of detail required in documents commencing civil lawsuits in the state was made much more strict, reversing long standing prior binding precedents in the state on the issue. The U.S. Supreme Court had done the same thing in federal cases, but the Colorado Court of Appeals at the time had repeatedly declined to apply the federal standard to state court cases. In Warne, the party whose legal documents were held to be insufficiently detailed was allowed, on remand to the trial court for further proceedings, to try to amend those documents to meet the new standard (for what it is worth, he didn't succeed on remand). This is usually not done, however, in &quot;writing on the wall&quot; situations where the new decision overruling prior law was obvious from an amendment to the statute that an older case interpreted, or from a previous new court precedent that overruled prior law in some circumstances and made it very likely that addition related binding case law would also be overruled, even if the previous landmark precedent didn't necessarily have that result. An exception applies in cases where a law enforcement officer is accused of violating someone's civil rights. In those cases, liability is only imposed on the officer if the fact that the conduct violated the plaintiff's legal rights was &quot;clearly established&quot; by statutes and case law at the time that the law enforcement officer took the action giving rise to the lawsuit, under a doctrine known as &quot;qualified immunity&quot;. If the law was ambiguous at the time that the law enforcement officer took action, &quot;qualified immunity&quot; bars the lawsuit. Similar considerations apply in favor of the government in some habeas corpus litigation in federal court (where a state court conviction is collaterally attacked after direct appeals are exhausted).
if the witness ends up being not favorable to your case, then you can have the judge declare him to be a "hostile" witness, therefore allowing you to ask leading questions. This is not really accurate. A typically case where a witness would be called a "hostile witness" for leading question purposes would be a case where the plaintiff calls the defendant or someone closely affiliated with the defendant as a witness. The nature of the relationship and not the actual content of the testimony determines if someone is a hostile witness. Neutral third parties are not "hostile witnesses" for this purpose even if their testimony if not favorable to your case. The relevant Colorado Rule of Evidence which tracks the federal rule which is the model for the vast majority of states describes the rule as follows: RULE 611 Mode and Order of Interrogation and Presentation (a) Control by court. The court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to (1) make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth, (2) avoid needless consumption of time, and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment. (b) Scope of cross-examination. Cross-examination should be limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness. The court may, in the exercise of discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters as if on direct examination. (c) Leading questions. Leading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as may be necessary to develop his testimony. Leading questions should be permitted on cross-examination. When a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party, interrogation may be by leading questions. A typical, run of the mill, example of a hostile witness who is not necessarily an adverse party or strictly identified with an adverse party would be the uncle of a criminal defendant, called by the prosecution, who is appearing to testify by subpoena because he was unwilling to testify voluntarily. See, e.g., Vigil v. People, 415 P.2d 863, 864 (Colo. 1966). Before the Federal Rules of Evidence were adopted, a variety of precise relationships to a defendant that would qualify you as a hostile witness were set out by rule or statute, and the Federal Rules of Evidence liberalized the practice of examining hostile witnesses with leading questions by making it a general standard, rather than a more detailed rule.
In the event of a dispute, the person resolving the matter, probably an arbitrator in the case of a commission dispute between two realtors and either an arbitrator or a judge and jury depending upon what your listing agreement says about that issue, would hear the testimony from both parties and decide. The intent of the parties is supposed to govern in cases of clerical errors, but a signed document has a lot of weight, especially in such a prominent term. It is a little hard from the way the question is posed to determine who is willing to correct the typo and who insists on enforcing the contract containing the typo.
Typically in defamation law, claims made persuiant to litigation are not defamatory, since they are going to be tested for validity if the case goes to trial. I'm not familiar with any differences in what is generally done in settlements between the U.K. and the U.S., but since both are Common Law countries, and Settlements are very common in civil proceedings in the U.S., it's a good start. Generally a settlemant can occur anytime before the verdict of the case is rendered, although usually it will happen after preliminary hearings during the Discovery phase. In the U.S., Discovery is very broad and one need not prove that the requested items contain evidence but might contain evidence. This means that, for example, you could request a substantial amount of e-mail records from the opposing party because somewhere on the company e-mail server, there might be something to help your case. And even if after you sift through the emails and find no smoking guns related to your case, you could find some dirty laundry that's unrelated but still damning... if not more so than the initial case. Many people, especially big compainies, would rather just give the ex-employee some what he/she wants, if it means they don't get to see the proverbial man behind the curtain. Additionally the practice might fall into a legally gray area of the law that, if it reaches trial, could hurt the company or even the industry if a judge rules against the company, effectively saying that this gray area is now definately illegal. Better to eat the loss of capital with the settling out of court than to take the much larger hit of the buisness practice being illegalized all together. Typically in settlements, both parties agree to terms and sign a contract. While the whole of the terms are never discussed, almost all include that the plaintiff will drop the case and never bring the matter to court again and that both parties will sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) meaning that they won't discuss the rest of the settlement terms with anyone not party to them. If the plaintiff does break the NDA, the defendant can sue for breech of contract and recover at the least the monitary compensation they awarded in the settlement. Conversely, if the respondent breaks the NDA, the plaintiff can refile their initial suit with the addition of breech of contract (and this time it will get to court... and all the dirty laundry sees the harsh light of day.). While the respondent in a settled case can possibly sue for defamation if the plaintiff said the respondent did what the initial suit claimed they did (legally, it was never proven or disproven), or they were guilty (again, since no verdict was reached at trial, no guilt was established), the breech of contract is a much more airtight case and doesn't open up discovery to the respondent's cupability in the settled case (since the breech is about discussing the settled case at all, not the validity of the accusations of the settled case). Typically they would not go this route because then it opens the can of worms the settlement was trying to keep a lid on.