Elder Justice Prosecutor Samples

Argues Court must support appellant's claims against appellees and defense on one appellee's counterclaim because: record shows factual threads of deceit and self-dealing; factual inferences suggest appellees took advantage of appellant; one appellee maximized its dollar recovery; one appellee failed to disclose actions to appellant

Requests Court: rule evidence regarding retirment pension benefits or eligibility inadmissible; preclude Burlington Northern Santa Fe from arguing non-liability; rule BNSF's workplace safety rules inadmissible; rule evidence or argument of risk assumption and contributory negligence inadmissible; instruct BNSF to avoid prejudicial, inflamatory and self-serving arguments; preclude non-work injury apportionment; exclude genetics testimony; bar argument plaintiff failed to mitigate damages; rule plaintiff's personal habits and mental health inadmissible

Argues Court must reverse order compelling arbitration and remand because: motion to compel arbitration was granted erroneously; arbitration provision was not within appellants' reasonable expectations; pre-dispute arbitration provision was unduly oppressive, unconscionable, or against public policy

Argues plaintiffs entitled to partial summary judgment under law of inverse condemnation and strict liability (2011)

Argues Court must remand case because restitution condition was illegal

Argues Court must reverse findings of fact, conclusions of law and remand because guardianship must encourage development of maximum self-reliance and independence

Argues Court must reverse decision dismissing breach of fiduciary duty and negligence claims and order conservator to disgorge personal fees and attorney's fees to protected person because: breach of fiduciary duty and negligence claims did not require expert testimony; conservator failed to appropriately manage conservatee's assets and estate; conservator was discharged without liability; protected person must be reimbursed for conservator's and attorney's fees

Argues Court grant motion because admission of evidence or argument on each matter undermines trial's integrity (2008)

Alleges: failure to warn; design defect; fraud; negligent misrepresentation; negligence; false advertising; misleading advertising; deceit; unfair trade practices; unjust enrichment (2007)

Argues Lower Court: denied defense motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; failed to transmit case to district court; dismissed Laches and Waiver defenses; dismissed negligence counterclaim per se; directed verdict in plaintiff's favor; failed to comply with time frame granting plaintiff's motion in limine; allowed plaintiff to testify and refused defense opportunity to rebut, contradict and impeach; granted attorney fees jury did not award (2004)

Requests Court deny motion because defendant's knowledge, intent or indifference not established (2004)

Argues Court should uphold jury's verdict because: Lower Court did not err in failing to dismiss case; district judge did not transfer case; Laches and Waiver defenses were inapplicable; negligence claim lacked support or authority; evidence was not in defendant's favor; there was no error due to untimeliness; defense did not offer relevant testimony; fee award is question of law for Court (2004)

Recommends Court: reject proposed sentence; suspend 20 of 40 year Count I sentence; run Count I concurrent with 10 year Count II sentence (2003)

Argues Court deny motion because: improperly entered; no valid defense presented (2002)

Requests Court deny summary judgment motion. Argues plaintiff entitled to insurance certificate benefits with prejudgment interest, compensatory and punitive damages for post claim underwriting (2001)

Argues Court must reverse caveat dismissal because: North Carolina law allows partial will challenges; executor believes Article V is product of undue influence, misrepresentation and fraud; executor is not estopped from challenging will; benefits retained do not estop executor from contesting will's validity; probate result does not preclude caveat filing; will's benefits require findings of fact and conclusions of law

Argues Court must deny motion and reverse second caveat dismissal because: different caveats can be filed in the same estate; North Carolina law allows partial will challenges; unnecessary delay argument contradicts motion to dismiss second caveat; one caveat's outcome does not preclude the filing of an unrelated caveat's appeal; court must try second caveat

Argues Court must affirm order because: malpractice complaint did not contain assertion medical care was reviewed by a qualified expert witness willing to testify it did not comply with applicable standard; certification issue's constitutionality was not preserved; order granting dismissal did not require findings of fact

Argues Court must reverse dismissal because: expert review of medical records found elder abuse; certification was not required; forecasted evidence from investigation into abuse and death were incorporated into complaint; medical procedures or medical decisions were made or performed without decedant's legal consent

Requests Court issue writ of certiorari because: exploitation of property by false pretenses must be reviewed; motions for appropriate relief claiming ineffective counsel must be reviewed and made clear

Requests Court dismiss or deny petition because: double jeopardy was not violated; ineffective assistance of counsel claim for relief was properly declined

Requests Court dismiss or deny petition because: relief sought is unclear; petition fails to state facts or issues; court is bound by another panel's rejection of petition for writ of certiorari

Court must affirm decision because: unconscionability safeguards against unjust evictions; unconscionability is consistent with federally subsidized housing regulations

Argues Court must affirm orders and deny appeal because: judicial discipline was not an abuse of discretion; attorney's fees award was not an abuse of discretion; fee collection prohibition was mandated; removal of legal counsel was warranted; findings and conclusions were supported by evidence

Argues Court must reverse orders because: incompetency was not adjudicated; counsel was not appointed guardian ad litem; judicial discipline notice was not revocation of pro hac vice privileges