TIAI December 14
GodhaschosenMJ
Posts: 177
<!-- m -->http://chancerydata.shelbycountytn.gov/ ... CH-09-1696<!-- m -->
GodhaschosenMJ
Posts: 177
Comments
01:50 PM Motion Set (T)
Entry: SET FOR jan 14, 2011@11:00 A.M. MOTION FOR SUMMARY
14-DEC-2010
03:01 PM Order (T)
Entry: FORM RULE 16 SCHEDULING ORDER
Let's wait and see what comes out of it...
But what stood out to me is the "defendant" is Lisa Marie Presley. Isn't that something we weren't clear on before?
with that being said, no idea what this means.
I'm actually glad that TS is still bringing attention to the Eliza case - whether it's a legitimate case/claim or not, it shows that TS is not waffling and is bringing our attention to it still - even after all the debating and arguing that has been going on, partly as a result of TS and the Eliza case.
http://chancerydata.shelbycountytn.gov/pls/chweb/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_frames?backto=P&case_id=CH-09-1696
10-NOV-2010
11:35 AM Case continued certain (T)
Entry: SCHEDULING CONFERENCE RESET FOR DECEMBER 14, 2010 @ 1:30 P.M.
14-DEC-2010
01:50 PM Motion Set (T)
Entry: SET FOR jan 14, 2011@11:00 A.M. MOTION FOR SUMMARY
14-DEC-2010
03:01 PM Order (T)
Entry: FORM RULE 16 SCHEDULING ORDER
In law, a summary judgment is a determination made by a court without a full trial. Such a judgment may be issued as to the merits of an entire case, or of specific issues in that case.
In common law systems, the interpretation of that law, that is to say, any question as to what the law actually is in a particular case, are decided by the judge; in rare cases jury nullification of the law may act to contravene or complement the instructions or orders of the judge, or other officers of the court. A factfinder has to decide what the facts are and apply the law. In traditional common law the factfinder was a jury, but in many jurisdictions the judge now acts as the factfinder as well. It is the factfinder who decides "what really happened," and it is the judge who applies the law to the facts as determined by the factfinder, whether directly or by giving instructions to the jury.
Absent an award of summary judgment (or some other type of pretrial dismissal), a lawsuit will ordinarily proceed to trial, which is an opportunity for each party to present evidence in an attempt to persuade the factfinder that such party is saying "what really happened," and that, under the judge's view of applicable law, such party should prevail.
The necessary steps before a case can get to trial include disclosing documents to the opponent by discovery, showing the other side the evidence, often in the form of witness statements. This process is lengthy, and can be difficult and costly.
A party moving (applying) for summary judgment is attempting to eliminate its risk of losing at trial, and possibly avoid having to go through discovery, by demonstrating to the judge, by sworn statements and documentary evidence, that there are no material issues of fact remaining to be tried. If there's nothing for the jury to decide, then, the moving party asks rhetorically, why have a trial? The moving party will also attempt to persuade the court that the undisputed material facts require judgment to be entered in favor of the moving party. In many jurisdictions, a party moving for summary judgment takes the risk that, although the judge may agree there are no material issues of fact remaining for trial, the judge may also find that it is the non-moving party who is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Also from Wikipedia:
A plaintiff may move for summary judgment in its favor on any cause of action, and similarly, a defendant may move for summary judgment in its favor on any affirmative defense, but in either case, must produce evidence in support of each and every essential element of the claim or defense (as it would have to do at trial). To be successful, such motions must be drafted as written previews of a party's entire case-in-chief (that it would put before the finder of fact at trial) because all parts of an entire claim or defense are at issue.
A different and very common tactic is where a defendant moves for summary judgment in its favor on a plaintiff's cause of action. The key difference is that in this latter situation, the defendant need only attack one essential element of the plaintiff's claim. A finding that the plaintiff cannot prove one essential element of its claim necessarily renders all other elements immaterial and results in an immediate grant of summary judgment to the defendant. Therefore, these motions tend to be precisely targeted to the weakest points of the plaintiff's case. It is also possible for a plaintiff to move for summary judgment in its favor on a defendant's affirmative defense, but those motions are very rare.
<!-- m -->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_ju ... ted_States<!-- m -->
At least we know that the Eliza's case is still very much alive and that the next court date on the 14th January may lead to some conclusions.
Hopefully we will hear more in the coming days in terms of what this really means (Such as which party is benefiting from the motion for summary judgement) and whether the Estate Lawyer William Bradley was confirmed as representing Lisa Marie Presley Lockwood or not.
Worthwhile keeping an eye on Andrew Mayoras Blog...
With L.O.V.E
PS: And I noticed dear Linda Sigmon comment on Mayoras Blog on the !6th August: "Thank you for the update, Andy. Everyone will be shown that my web site is the truth..someday." She was a happy bunny then! I wonder which rabbit hole she fell into!!!
I am glad to hear from TS again after all the turmoil lately. Not chased off the board, as feared, but still monitoring the events. Life's a stage, really. So much happening at the moment. Not only bad news.
i wondered about that too. thought i didn't even know enough about all of this to pose the question . <!-- s:oops: -->:oops:<!-- s:oops: -->
I was expecting this redirect. I thought it would be today not yesterday, lol.
I am a little late. If I say this in layman terms so far:
Eliza filed a complaint to determine paternity and heirship in 2009.
14-AUG-2009 Original complaint
COMPLAINT TO DETERMINE PARENTAGE AND HEIRSHIP
Then there was a publication made to unknown heirs of Vernon, which means that the unknown heirs were informed publically that Eliza was wanting to determine paternity and heirship. <!-- s:?: -->:?:<!-- s:?: --> like when a person dies and the person in charge of the Estate puts in the newspaper an announcement that the person died so if any creditors want a peice of the estate they better do it in a timely manner or forget ever getting any money later on when the amount of time required for public notice is over.
17-AUG-2009 Publication order
ON THE UNKNOWN HEIRS OF VERNON E PRESLEY PUBLICATION DATES: AUGUST 21, 28, SEPTEMBER 4, AND 11, 2009 RETURN DATE: OCTOBER 12, 2009
Then there was proof of that publication.
11-SEP-2009 Proof of publication
ON THE UNKNOWN HEIRS OF VERNON E. PRESLEY
Nothing happened between Sep. 11 2009 and August 6 2010 in her case so her (Eliza's) lawyer filed for a default judgement on 06-AUG-2010.
OF APPLICATION MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
This is so another lawyer for Eliza can stand in.
10-AUG-2010
CONSENT ORDER SUBSTITUTING COUNSEL
On August 16 2010 Lisa's lawyer filed an answer to the complaint. He also asked for a summary judgement, which means that the lawyer wanted the judge to rule in LMP's favor based on: ITEMIZATION OF UNDISPUTED FACTS.
20-AUG-2010 LETTER FROM KIM GARRETT (Whoever that is?) <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? -->
Then on 08-OCT-2010 Eliza's lawyer CALDWELL, KATHLEEN L filed a
MOTION FOR STAY ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO ALLOW DISCOVERY RELEVANT TO SAID MOTION
Basically that means Eliza's lawyer asked for time to discover relevant info on LMP's motion for a summary judgement.
On 27-OCT-2010 The first scheduling conference was set for November 30 2010
Notice sent/set for trial
SET FOR SCHEDULING CONFERENCE NOVEMBER 30, 2010 @ 1:30.
This had to be reset to December 14 2010.
10-NOV-2010 Case continued certain
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE RESET FOR DECEMBER 14, 2010 @ 1:30 P.M.
Then on 14-DEC-2010 a Motion Set for jan 14, 2011@11:00 A.M.
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
So now it is a waiting game until January 14 2011. This means that the Chancellor accepted Eliza's DNA the way it is. If the Chancellor wouldn't have accepted the DNA the way it is he would have ruled in favor of LMP on August 16 2010.
Hmm that is what I call freaky timing for the request of a Summary Judgement by LMP's lawyer...
Peace
Hmm that is what I call freaky timing for the request of a Summary Judgement by LMP's lawyer... Could you elaborate alittle more on this comment?! <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) --> [/b]
Peace[/quote]
Hmm that is what I call freaky timing for the request of a Summary Judgement by LMP's lawyer... Could you elaborate alittle more on this comment?! <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) --> [/b]
Peace[/quote]
From my first post:
On August 16 2010 Lisa's lawyer filed an answer to the complaint. He also asked for a summary judgement, which means that the lawyer wanted the judge to rule in LMP's favor based on: ITEMIZATION OF UNDISPUTED FACTS.
The date the lawyer for LMP filed an answer was on the anniversary of Elvis' "death".
Peace