Elder Justice Prosecutor Samples
Requests Court admit defendant's prior uncharged acts because: conduct is probative to issues of defendant's intent, motive, common scheme and plan; value outweighs possible prejudice; incidents show victim's injuries not accidental
Notice that deposition of [witness] to be conducted at [place] on [date] at [time] greater than 72 hours from filing of notice
Requests Court authorize testimony of witness taken and preserved because witness unavailable at trial
Affirms [witness] advised Affiant [facts showing unavailability] for Court [date] and video deposition needed for trial
Court finds examination of [witness] shall be held on [date] at [time] at [place]. Commonwealth shall pay travel and subsistence expenses of defendant and defendant's attorney to attend. Defendant shall be kept in presence of witness during examination
Requests Court's permission to: call case-in-chief defendant's spouse; disallow privilege under KRE 504; admit expert testimony on issue of undue influence
Introductory Note; Instructions and Definitions Must be Supported by the Evidence; When to Instruct the Jury on Penalties; Definitions; Failure to Report Suspected [Abuse,] [Neglect,] [or Exploitation]; Knowing Abuse of an Adult; Wanton Abuse of an Adult; Reckless Abuse of an Adult; Knowing Exploitation of an Adult $300 or Less; Knowing Exploitation of an Adult More Than $300; Wanton Exploitation of an Adult; Wanton Exploitation of an Adult $300 or Less; Wanton Exploitation of an Adult More Than $300; Reckless Exploitation of an Adult $300 or Less; Reckless Exploitation of an Adult More Than $300; Reckless Exploitation of an Adult
Argues Court must affirm judgment because: issues raised are not implicated; issues raised are not subject of judgment under review; judgment is based on factual determinations
Defendants are entitled to judgment dismissing plaintiffs' claims with prejudice and return of property seized by St. Tammany Parish Sheriff's Office
Argues Court must affirm trial court's determinations because defendant's challenges to trial court's jurisdiction and findings of fault, conspiracy, extortion, infliction of intentional emotional distress, and defamation are neither in accord with applicable law nor supported by trail evidence
Argues Court must reverse ruling and remand because trail court stated in its reasons for granting summary judgment there were issues of material fact which had to be decided by a jury during trial on the merits
Argues Court must reverse and remand district court's judgment granting exception of prescription and dismissing defendant with prejudice because: court failed to apply contra non valentum principle; court erred granting exception based on prescription accrual date; court erroneously concluded petitioners sought legal advice within one year of decease's last treatment
Argues Court must reverse district court's judgment because: no evidence supports court's ruling Will null for failure of cause; no evidence supports court's ruling donation null for lack of cause; court erred allowing hearsay evidence; no evidence supports court's ruling undue influence; no evidence supports court's ruling Will and donation fraudulently induced; court erred denying blood or affinity relationship; court erred removing administratrix
Argues Court must overrule trial court's ruling and reinstate case because: court failed to grant motion to vacate; arbitration panel disregarded law on fiduciary duties
Argues Court must affirm trial court's judgment because: appellant agreed to binding Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration; arbitration panel found plaintiff's claims erroneous; plaintiff failed to prove any ground to vacate award; court determined hearing was fair
Argues Court must reverse summary judgment in plaintiff's favor because: unrecorded counterletter was not a sale; plaintiffs did not transfer any interest that triggered right of redemption; donation transferred 100% ownership under law of registry and contract interpretation
Argues Court must reverse and set aside judgment because: owners never waived rights of first refusal; unit's fair market value was not determined; donation was valid
Requests Court grant temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction and permanent injunction because: defendants fraudulently had elderly man execute a power of attorney; defendants used elderly man's power of attorney for their advantage; defendants fraudulently had elderly man execute a Last Will and Testament; defendants fraudulently had elderly man execute an act of donation
Argues Court must affirm district court's determinations because: jurisdiction was proper; there was no percentage of fault error; defendants were found liable; extortion and infliction of emotional distress determinations were in accord with applicable law and trial evidence; defamation damages were awarded in accord with applicable law; findings were supported by trial evidence
Argues Court must reverse trial court's dismissal and remand to district court because: trial court erred finding expert witness necessary for plaintiffs to avoid summary judgment; trail court erred dismissing plaintiffs' cause of action for negligence; trial court erred finding pharmacy not a solidary obligor; trial court erred dismissing pharmacy on its exception of prescription
Argues Court must overturn rulings and remand for further proceedings and trial on alleged negligent property maintenance, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, tortious interference, failure to provide independent oversight of facility for disabled and elderly tenants because: trial court erred granting defendants' motion to strike memorandum and exhibits filed in opposition to motion for summary judgment; trial court erred granting defendants' motion for summary judgment
Argues Court must reverse trial court judgment because: plaintiff established custody; plaintiff showed risk of harm; defendant failed to take corrective action; trial court erred not allowing expert to testimony
Argues Court must preclude summary judgment because: material questions of fact must be explored; discovery must be permitted
Argues Court must reverse trial court's judgment because: trial court's denial of motion to continue was an abuse of discretion; neither litigants nor court conducted discovery; there were material questions of fact that precluded summary judgment
Argues Court must reverse or modify trial court judgment and dismiss defendant's suit with prejudice or, in the alternative, award plaintiff 1/2 for services rendered decedent because: court erred not determining inter vivos payment extinguished defendant's demand; court erred not determining pour autrui stipulation between plainfiff and defendant estopped defendant's demand; court erred not rendering judgment for plaintiff upon reconventional demand against estate; court erred not rendering judgment for plaintiff upon third party demand against defendant for 1/2 value of services rendered