nothing is as bad as this: law firm i worked for when i was in law school does a lot of large subrogation cases--like refinery explosions etc. they're the plaintiff trying to recover money for insurance company who paid out mega $$$ against other parties who were responsible. they scheduled a 2 day weekend mediation because their clients needed to fly in from london. there were like 6 layers of insurance. they told the insurance folks to have their coverage hammered out before the mediation. so none of the insurance people talked before the mediation. so they spent all weekend sitting in a conference room while the coverage people bitched about which layer kicked in when etc. and an offer was never made because insurance people were fighting.
I'm really close to getting something done for about tree fiddy but a lot of the time I feel like the kid trying to mediate with parents that hate each other.
going to state trial lawyer association seminar next two days. hopefully my law practice doesn't implode in my absence. then going to mexico 18-22nd. surely it will implode then.
does anyone think i'll have problems putting on lost profits/loss of income in a personal injury case where a guy was injured and i have expert testimony from treating docs saying he couldn't continue to run his businesses due to his physical and mental injuries/restrictions and i have tax filings showing his businesses profits for the years leading up to it. Not sure if I'd need a CPA to opine that his business would continue to have the same levels of profits etc. I haven't deep dived the case law yet. Trying to get the raw data from his businesses which he said mostly is in godaddy.com domains that may or may not have wiped out all the data when he stopped running the domain. This looks good though: A party seeking recovery for lost profits must establish the claim with reasonable certainty, not based on mere speculation and conjecture. Lovett v. E.L. Garner, Inc., 511 So.2d 1346, 1353 (Miss.1987); Ishee v. People's Bank, 737 So.2d 1011, 1013 (Miss.Ct.App.1998). Damages are deemed speculative only when the cause is uncertain, not when the amount is uncertain. Parker Tractor & Implement Co. v. Johnson, 819 So.2d 1234, 1239 (Miss.2002). “Where it is reasonably certain that damage has resulted, mere uncertainty as to the amount will not preclude the right of recovery or prevent a jury decision awarding damages.” Cain v. Mid–South Pump Co., 458 So.2d 1048, 1050 (Miss.1984). When loss is realized, but “the extent of the injury and the amount of damage are not capable of exact and accurate proof,” damages may be awarded if the evidence lays “a foundation which will enable the trier of fact to make a fair and reasonable estimate of the amount of damage.” Id. at 1050. This Court has recognized past earnings as a sufficient method to estimate lostprofits. Ishee, 737 So.2d at 1013 (citing Kaiser Inv., Inc. v. Linn Agriprises, Inc., 538 So.2d 409, 416 (Miss.1989); Sanders v. Dantzler, 375 So.2d 774, 777 (Miss.1979)). Derivaux should not be precluded from recovery, so long as “he has produced the best evidence available and it is sufficient to afford a reasonable basis for estimating his loss.” Cain, 458 So.2d at 1050. “Extrapolating actual past profits to reach a figure that represent anticipated future profits [is] a reasonably certain method of proving lost profits.” Benchmark Health Care Ctr., Inc., v. Cain, 912 So.2d 175, 180 (Miss.Ct.App.2005).
In Alabama, the jury charge on lost business profits is not very plaintiff friendly: The plaintiff claims of the defendant damages for loss of profits for the disruption or discontinuance of plaintiff's business as a proximate result of the alleged wrongs committed by the defendant. To recover for loss of profits, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove with reasonable certainty the amount of such damages and further prove to your reasonable satisfaction that such damages are proximate results of the alleged wrongs. Proof to a reasonable certainty means that the plaintiff has to produce evidence to provide a basis upon which you can, with reasonable certainty, calculate the amount of the alleged lost profits arising as a proximate result of the defendant's alleged wrongful conduct during the period of the disruption or discontinuance of the plaintiff's business.
Just got home. I spent 20 hours at the office today, the last 11 on pro bono. I love this profession. Not even joking.
On Tuesday, I told the managing partner to reach out if he needed any help on an M&A transaction he has been working on since I used to practice exclusively tax M&A. Since then, I've brought in a client who has been keeping me busy, but will be considerably less busy after tomorrow and will have only one-off tasks through EOY. Managing partner just emailed the corporate/tax group to ask for volunteers to work on a deal whose term sheet is not yet finalized but wants to close by 12/31. I've been at the firm for less than a month and I have no billable hour requirement through 12/31 since I am so new and still getting up to speed on things. Torn on whether I should volunteer and set high expectations and be a "team player," or if I should say fuggit and enjoy the holidays/birthday/New Years. Thoughts aside from me needing to shut my damn mouth?
I'd probably do it. Early/first impressions matter. Then again, I have a problem with overvolunteering.
If it is interesting work or with a partner you want to work with going forward, definitely volunteer. Even if it is interesting work but with a partner you'd prefer not to work with, and you have more than enough work, I'd not speak up.
If it’s with a partner who will be giving you work going forward or who will have input on raises/bonuses then you should do it If it’s a partner who just does his own thing and has a small book he mostly handles himself then fuck no
So I canceled my vacation this week to work on an urgent M&A transaction. I got an email from a partner asking me to help out on a comment letter for some proposed regulations. I told him I'd be happy to help after the holiday, but don't have time this week. He responded, "make time ...." I immediately deleted the email to prevent myself from responding in a manner I would regret later.
It's the managing partner who has a large book of business and is an overall really nice guy. As the managing partner, I'm sure he has input in raises but associate pay and bonuses are pretty much lockstep from my understanding. I volunteered to do it.
Hey Gallant Knight my son got in a MVA last Friday night and it totaled his car want to be my lawyer? Kid hit him head on doing 45 and crossed into my sons lane going around a 90 degree corner.
Thankfully just whiplash. One ER visit. Still having soreness but nothing bad. Car is totaled Should I send him for 38 chiro visits?
Sounds like a surgical candidate. What’s he going to do now that he obviously won’t be able to work ever again?
New legal question fellas A dentist just purchased a large chunk of land behind my house. My water line and water meter is on his property about 300 yards into that field. We have easement rights. Dentist begins digging to build a driveway and snaps our water line. He fixes it, but says he isn't going to cover it up and if it freezes it's our problem and we need to move it. I don't believe he called ArkUPS (utility protection services) to mark the utilities on his land and I think it's pretty clear he doesn't understand easement rights. My question is do those rights ever expire? Do we have to move our water meter/line if a new land owner comes in and wants those lines moved?
Dude showed up at our house and threatened my wife with this shit while I was gone. His wife came by about an hour earlier to let everyone know what was going on to people whose water line may be affected. Then his dumbass shows up an hour later before I get home to talk to my wife. I want to see how good this dentist is at fixing his own teeth after I talk to him after this shit.
It’s been a while since 1L Property but I’m pretty sure the easement rights run with the land in perpetuity unless the easement itself says otherwise
I’ve been in the child physical/sexual abuse division for a year. Incredibly stressful (and at times has made me very jaded, but I’ve learned to detach myself when I go home). But very very rewarding.
The rights were granted before we bought the house and I've never seen it. I'm getting ready to call the guy but want to make sure I've got my points accurate
So he can't fuck with it ever, correct? And any damage he causes he has to fix even though it's on his land?
Did he break your line from the meter to your house or the line to the meter from the main line? If the latter, tell the water provider and they’ll likely go cover it up for you. They’ll also explain to him that public utility easements are necessary and very protected.
It depends on the easement, but typically yes. He knew the easement existed when he purchased the land; if he didn’t want to abide by it, he shouldn’t have bought the land.
He broke it at the meter from the sounds of it by hitting the lid/cap and pushing it a few feet. Not 100% on that, but it's where our shut off valve is and the meter. It used to have a stake marking it at the meter, but he removed it. It was also recently painted by the city to mark it.
It's always been weird to me that courts can't just call up the legislature and ask what the hell a statute means.
It’s never the same legislature. And would you really want the legislature answering those types of questions?
Got a case (L&L). Charges filed. Victim is a crazy teenager, definitely seems like she is lying. Our guy is going to sit for a polygraph. If he happens to pass, think the State will give a shit?
No, but I just think it's odd that there's not even a mechanism for it. Like a certified question or something.
How could there be? Unless the law was just passed, there will be turnover in the legislature. Once you’re not asking the same people, the legislature is no better equipped to resolve that question than a judge is. And even if it was who specifically would you ask? Everyone? Just the people who voted for it? The author? What if they disagree?
I think he has to pay to cover it back up as you have an easement and he technically went onto your piece of land when he dug it up. So he needed to fix it and cover it back up. I wouldn't want to pay a lawyer to do write a letter but it might be worth it.
I'm just saying it's odd to me that a court can't send a note over that says "hey does this word modify this word or that word?"
Aren't there (sub-)committee reports, transcripts from floor debate, etc. that you could use to make this determination or at worst to cherry pick and make your argument?
The line is on his land. The water meter is a good 200-300 yards onto his land. I talked to him this morning. He obviously has no idea what he is doing and didn't call ArkUPS because he was just grading, and wasn't digging. I went back there this morning and took some pictures. It was actually the line itself he hit and not the water meter/shut off area. This one shows how deep he was "grading" and that he's taken about 2' off of the dirt that was on top of the line