Rosin Steinhagen Mendel is a law firm dedicated to serving our clients in New York City, and the surrounding counties in southern New York State and in New Jersey.
We represent our clients in all types of proceedings that include termination of parental rights, permanency hearings, custody hearings, guardianship, administrative proceedings, and adoption. Our goal is to provide each of our clients with the best possible representation in all aspects of their cases, and clients appreciate our careful analysis of individual cases, through preparation and attention to detail.
Rosin Steinhagen Mendel is here to provide their clients with the highest level of representation in family matters. Visit us on the web at http://www.lawrsm.com/ for more information regarding your adoption and foster care concerns.
Monday, June 18, 2012
Dangerous Dog Lawyers
More dangerous dog cases have occurred over the years and Dangerous Dog Declarations and Dog Attack prosecutions can have a devastating effect on dog owners and their beloved pets. For over a decade, our lawyers have experience in dealing with dangerous dog attack cases and have developed techniques that have proven successful in defences to these prosecutions. We can refer you to the most respected 'temperamant assessors' in NSW; including assessors who train Council Rangers. We can draft the
'letter of objection' and 'undertakings' on your behalf; which can include a promise to always keep your dog on a leash when in public, to ensure your backyard is secure and to only allow adults to walk your dog.
At Sydney Criminal Lawyers, we understand how devastating it is for owners to have to turn in their dogs for a dangerous dog notice. Our experience in the field has given us extensive experience to persuade Councils to withdraw prosecutions and to influence councils not to issue dangerous dog declarations to owners. Our team is able to revoke dangerous dog declarations and can issue a nuisance dog order instead. Call us today if your family is in need of protecting your beloved pet at (02) 9261 8881 or visit us on the
web for more http://www.criminallaw.com.au/dangerous-dog-lawyers
'letter of objection' and 'undertakings' on your behalf; which can include a promise to always keep your dog on a leash when in public, to ensure your backyard is secure and to only allow adults to walk your dog.
At Sydney Criminal Lawyers, we understand how devastating it is for owners to have to turn in their dogs for a dangerous dog notice. Our experience in the field has given us extensive experience to persuade Councils to withdraw prosecutions and to influence councils not to issue dangerous dog declarations to owners. Our team is able to revoke dangerous dog declarations and can issue a nuisance dog order instead. Call us today if your family is in need of protecting your beloved pet at (02) 9261 8881 or visit us on the
web for more http://www.criminallaw.com.au/dangerous-dog-lawyers
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Court says judges can't decide draft complaint
The Supreme Court says federal employees cannot go to trial judges to complain about their firing for not signing up for the U.S. draft.
The high court ruled Monday that the Civil Service Reform Act took U.S. district courts' jurisdiction away from from judging these types of claims.
Several men lost their jobs in the executive branch for not signing up for Selective Service between the ages of 18 and 26. They sued, but at least two federal appeals courts ruled that they couldn't bring lawsuits straight to court because lawmakers had stripped trial judges of their jurisdiction.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a 6-3 decision saying the Merit Selection Protection Board must hear the case. Justices Samuel Alito, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan dissented.
The high court ruled Monday that the Civil Service Reform Act took U.S. district courts' jurisdiction away from from judging these types of claims.
Several men lost their jobs in the executive branch for not signing up for Selective Service between the ages of 18 and 26. They sued, but at least two federal appeals courts ruled that they couldn't bring lawsuits straight to court because lawmakers had stripped trial judges of their jurisdiction.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a 6-3 decision saying the Merit Selection Protection Board must hear the case. Justices Samuel Alito, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan dissented.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Md. high court to hear same-sex divorce case
Maryland's highest court is poised to hear arguments in a precedent-setting case involving two women who married in California but were denied a divorce in Maryland, a state that does not currently allow same-sex weddings.
The Court of Appeals of Maryland in Annapolis is set to hear arguments Friday from lawyers for the lesbian couple seeking to end their marriage. A Maryland judge declined to grant their divorce in 2010, concluding that the women's marriage isn't valid under Maryland law.
But lawyers for the women disagree, saying the state should recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere even though it doesn't allow same-sex weddings at this time. They say that as a result, the state should allow the couple to divorce.
The high court's ultimate decision may have limited effect since same-sex weddings, and by extension divorces, are set to start in the state in January 2013 under a law passed this year. But opponents of the new law are seeking to overturn it in a potential voter referendum.
Meanwhile, judges in Maryland are inconsistent about granting divorces for gay couples who married in another state. Lawyers involved in Friday's case say they believe judges have granted about a half a dozen divorces for gay couples, but their clients, Jessica Port and Virginia Anne Cowan, and at least one other couple were recently denied that.
The Court of Appeals of Maryland in Annapolis is set to hear arguments Friday from lawyers for the lesbian couple seeking to end their marriage. A Maryland judge declined to grant their divorce in 2010, concluding that the women's marriage isn't valid under Maryland law.
But lawyers for the women disagree, saying the state should recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere even though it doesn't allow same-sex weddings at this time. They say that as a result, the state should allow the couple to divorce.
The high court's ultimate decision may have limited effect since same-sex weddings, and by extension divorces, are set to start in the state in January 2013 under a law passed this year. But opponents of the new law are seeking to overturn it in a potential voter referendum.
Meanwhile, judges in Maryland are inconsistent about granting divorces for gay couples who married in another state. Lawyers involved in Friday's case say they believe judges have granted about a half a dozen divorces for gay couples, but their clients, Jessica Port and Virginia Anne Cowan, and at least one other couple were recently denied that.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
'Holland's Next Top Model' wins agency lawsuit
A former winner of the television show "Holland's Next Top Model" has
won a lawsuit against Elite Model Management after she was dropped for
having hips the agency considered too large.
The Amsterdam District Court ruled Wednesday that Ananda Marchildon, now 25, was entitled to the main prize she won in the 2008 production of the show, a three-year contract worth $98,500.
Marchildon argued she was dismissed after only $13,000 worth of work because she didn't lose enough weight to please the agency.
According to the written ruling, though Marchildon had gained weight since getting the contract, she had a hip measurement of 92 centimeters (about 36.2 inches) when she won, and Elite could not demand that she go down to 90 centimeters — about 35.4 inches. That is far smaller than the average woman's hips but not unusual in the modeling world.
The Amsterdam District Court ruled Wednesday that Ananda Marchildon, now 25, was entitled to the main prize she won in the 2008 production of the show, a three-year contract worth $98,500.
Marchildon argued she was dismissed after only $13,000 worth of work because she didn't lose enough weight to please the agency.
According to the written ruling, though Marchildon had gained weight since getting the contract, she had a hip measurement of 92 centimeters (about 36.2 inches) when she won, and Elite could not demand that she go down to 90 centimeters — about 35.4 inches. That is far smaller than the average woman's hips but not unusual in the modeling world.
Mo. court denies tax break for convenience stores
Missouri's highest court says convenience stores cannot claim a tax break on the electricity used to prepare food.
The Supreme Court's decision Tuesday hinged on whether the act of warming or cooking food qualified as "processing" a product. If so, then the electricity used for food preparation could qualify for a state sales tax exemption.
In a 5-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that food preparation was not "processing" and the tax break could not be claimed.
Casey's General Stores had sought the tax break for one month of electricity used at stores in Grain Valley and Greenwood.
The Missouri Department of Revenue said it did not have a specific figure for what might have been owed to Casey's, or to other companies that might have made similar claims.
The Supreme Court's decision Tuesday hinged on whether the act of warming or cooking food qualified as "processing" a product. If so, then the electricity used for food preparation could qualify for a state sales tax exemption.
In a 5-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that food preparation was not "processing" and the tax break could not be claimed.
Casey's General Stores had sought the tax break for one month of electricity used at stores in Grain Valley and Greenwood.
The Missouri Department of Revenue said it did not have a specific figure for what might have been owed to Casey's, or to other companies that might have made similar claims.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Riley Bennett & Egloff, LLP - Construction Law Firm
As part of our experience representing owners, contractors and design professionals throughout the industry, we have written and negotiated contracts based on industry standard forms (such as the AIA forms) and have also developed custom contract documents for specific clients and projects. Based upon our experience drafting and negotiating contract documents, as well as our advice and representation of clients in construction disputes, we know what works in a contract and what does not.
* We know contracts: We routinely draft and negotiate design and construction contracts for large, complex projects.
* We know construction: We know the industry, the terminology, the technology and procedures, the economics and accounting, as well as the law and the potential pitfalls for disputes.
* We know contractors: Having represented contractors of all sizes and specialties for decades, we know how they work; we know how they plan, estimate and schedule jobs; we know their management, accounting and claims procedures; and we know what is important to them and what is not in contract negotiations and in the resolution of claims and disputes.
Riley Bennett & Egloff Law has expertise in all areas of construction law and their construction attorneys are dedicated to finding the best solution their construction industry clients. With much experience working with small, family-owned contractors, to some of the biggest general contractors in the Indianapolis area, Riley Bennett & Egloff Law knows what works.
Indianapolis Construction Law Firm
* We know contracts: We routinely draft and negotiate design and construction contracts for large, complex projects.
* We know construction: We know the industry, the terminology, the technology and procedures, the economics and accounting, as well as the law and the potential pitfalls for disputes.
* We know contractors: Having represented contractors of all sizes and specialties for decades, we know how they work; we know how they plan, estimate and schedule jobs; we know their management, accounting and claims procedures; and we know what is important to them and what is not in contract negotiations and in the resolution of claims and disputes.
Riley Bennett & Egloff Law has expertise in all areas of construction law and their construction attorneys are dedicated to finding the best solution their construction industry clients. With much experience working with small, family-owned contractors, to some of the biggest general contractors in the Indianapolis area, Riley Bennett & Egloff Law knows what works.
Indianapolis Construction Law Firm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)