<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Trial Court Case Law</title>
	<atom:link href="http://caselawproject.wordpress.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://caselawproject.wordpress.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Dec 2008 00:36:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
<cloud domain='caselawproject.wordpress.com' port='80' path='/?rsscloud=notify' registerProcedure='' protocol='http-post' />

	<atom:link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="http://caselawproject.wordpress.com/osd.xml" title="Trial Court Case Law" />
	<atom:link rel='hub' href='http://caselawproject.wordpress.com/?pushpress=hub'/>
		<item>
		<title>Holding in Di Genova: Statute Does Not Require Formal Notice</title>
		<link>http://caselawproject.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/di-genova-statute-formal-notice/</link>
		<comments>http://caselawproject.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/di-genova-statute-formal-notice/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Dec 2008 07:13:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>caselawproject</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Caselaw Project]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trial Court Case Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[revocation of the plaintiffs credentials without charges]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://caselawproject.wordpress.com/?p=141</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The next and decisive question on the appeal is whether, as appellants argue, the Legislature intended Section 12756 to apply retrospectively. Had Fountain suffered his &#8216;conviction&#8217; after the effective date of the statute, there would be no doubt of the Board&#8217;s authority to revoke his credential by summary action, for it was held Di Genova [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=caselawproject.wordpress.com&amp;blog=5127306&amp;post=141&amp;subd=caselawproject&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://caselawproject.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/di-genova-statute-formal-notice/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/ca164a3a91d34857ae17b7604cf0e800?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=R" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">caselawproject</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Property Not Acquired with Separate Property of Decedent</title>
		<link>http://caselawproject.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/property-not-acquired/</link>
		<comments>http://caselawproject.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/property-not-acquired/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Dec 2008 07:00:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>caselawproject</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Caselaw Project]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trial Court Case Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[parcel of real property in Pennsylvania]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://caselawproject.wordpress.com/?p=136</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Here, the evidence is to the effect that all of the property in the estate of the decedent was acquired during the marriage or had its source in property so acquired, and there is no evidence that any part of such property was acquired with separate property of the decedent. While it is true that [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=caselawproject.wordpress.com&amp;blog=5127306&amp;post=136&amp;subd=caselawproject&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://caselawproject.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/property-not-acquired/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/ca164a3a91d34857ae17b7604cf0e800?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=R" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">caselawproject</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Epitomized Evidence Insufficient to Support Findings</title>
		<link>http://caselawproject.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/epitomized-evidence/</link>
		<comments>http://caselawproject.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/epitomized-evidence/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Dec 2008 06:52:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>caselawproject</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Caselaw Project]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trial Court Case Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://caselawproject.wordpress.com/?p=132</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The contestants (decedent&#8217;s heirs) contend that the evidence which we have epitomized above is insufficient to sustain the trial court&#8217;s findings that all of the personal estate constituted community property of the decedent and his predeceased wife, and in turn the latter&#8217;s heirs contend that the evidence is insufficient to support the trial court&#8217;s finding [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=caselawproject.wordpress.com&amp;blog=5127306&amp;post=132&amp;subd=caselawproject&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://caselawproject.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/epitomized-evidence/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/ca164a3a91d34857ae17b7604cf0e800?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=R" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">caselawproject</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Cross Appeals Filed in Proceeding to Determine Heirship</title>
		<link>http://caselawproject.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/cross-appeals-filed/</link>
		<comments>http://caselawproject.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/cross-appeals-filed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Dec 2008 06:33:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>caselawproject</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Caselaw Project]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trial Court Case Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[separate property of the decedent which descended to and vested in his heirs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://caselawproject.wordpress.com/?p=121</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We are confronted here with cross-appeals by the heirs of the decedent upon the one hand and the heirs of his predeceased wife on the other, from the decree entered in a proceeding to determine heirship. By its decree the trial court determined that all of the property of the decedent with the exception of [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=caselawproject.wordpress.com&amp;blog=5127306&amp;post=121&amp;subd=caselawproject&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://caselawproject.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/cross-appeals-filed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/ca164a3a91d34857ae17b7604cf0e800?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=R" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">caselawproject</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Special Master Appointed in Complex Trust Case</title>
		<link>http://caselawproject.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/special-master-appointed/</link>
		<comments>http://caselawproject.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/special-master-appointed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 06:46:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>caselawproject</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Caselaw Project]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trial Court Case Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Deibel failed to make a proper accounting according to law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[special master commissioner rendered a report]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://caselawproject.wordpress.com/?p=113</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The records were complicated, confused and voluminous. Great difficulty was experienced in securing accurate information relative to many transactions. Definite figures were not easily ascertainable. The exceptions filed involved hundreds of different items in the accounts. After a prolonged and painstaking hearing the special master commissioner rendered a report and indicated his conclusions on the [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=caselawproject.wordpress.com&amp;blog=5127306&amp;post=113&amp;subd=caselawproject&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://caselawproject.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/special-master-appointed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/ca164a3a91d34857ae17b7604cf0e800?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=R" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">caselawproject</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Case Brought to Enjoin Threatened Action</title>
		<link>http://caselawproject.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/case-enjoin-threatened-action/</link>
		<comments>http://caselawproject.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/case-enjoin-threatened-action/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 05:51:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>caselawproject</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Caselaw Project]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trial Court Case Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[instituted by plaintiff to enjoin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[issues presented in the former injunction case]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://caselawproject.wordpress.com/?p=104</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The case referred to in the first ground assigned in the motion to dismiss was instituted by plaintiff to enjoin the threatened eviction of the plaintiff by the defendants from the premises occupied by him under written lease from the defendants and was brought before any action seeking to evict the plaintiff from the premises [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=caselawproject.wordpress.com&amp;blog=5127306&amp;post=104&amp;subd=caselawproject&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://caselawproject.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/case-enjoin-threatened-action/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/ca164a3a91d34857ae17b7604cf0e800?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=R" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">caselawproject</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court Reluctant To Enforce Forfeiture</title>
		<link>http://caselawproject.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/court-enforce-forfeiture/</link>
		<comments>http://caselawproject.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/court-enforce-forfeiture/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 05:37:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>caselawproject</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Caselaw Project]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trial Court Case Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://caselawproject.wordpress.com/?p=97</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Unless there is an express stipulation for a forfeiture, the breach of a covenant in a lease does not work a forfeiture of the term. This rule was approved and applied by this court in the case of Thomas v. Kirkbride, in the following words: &#8216;Forfeiture is very rarely decreed or enforced, unless specifically provided [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=caselawproject.wordpress.com&amp;blog=5127306&amp;post=97&amp;subd=caselawproject&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://caselawproject.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/court-enforce-forfeiture/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/ca164a3a91d34857ae17b7604cf0e800?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=R" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">caselawproject</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Appeal from Trial in Hancock County</title>
		<link>http://caselawproject.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/appeal-trial-hancock-county/</link>
		<comments>http://caselawproject.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/appeal-trial-hancock-county/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 05:22:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>caselawproject</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Caselaw Project]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trial Court Case Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Layne was plaintiff]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://caselawproject.wordpress.com/?p=94</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is an appeal on questions of law from a judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Hancock County, in an action wherein the appellant, Emil E. Layne was plaintiff and the appellees, Richard J. Baker, Albert E. Baker, T. T. Perkins, justice of the peace, Findlay township, Hancock county, Ohio, and J. W. Crates, [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=caselawproject.wordpress.com&amp;blog=5127306&amp;post=94&amp;subd=caselawproject&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://caselawproject.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/appeal-trial-hancock-county/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/ca164a3a91d34857ae17b7604cf0e800?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=R" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">caselawproject</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tenant Fights Back After Landlord Tries to Evict</title>
		<link>http://caselawproject.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/tenant-fights-back/</link>
		<comments>http://caselawproject.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/tenant-fights-back/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 05:12:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>caselawproject</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Caselaw Project]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trial Court Case Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[forcible entry and detainer proceeding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sustaining motion by Court of Common Pleas]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://caselawproject.wordpress.com/?p=90</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The sustaining of a motion to dismiss a petition for an injunction, by a Court of Common Pleas, on the ground that the issues presented are res judicata, is error, where no pleading other than the petition has been filed and no evidence has been introduced at the hearing on the application for a temporary [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=caselawproject.wordpress.com&amp;blog=5127306&amp;post=90&amp;subd=caselawproject&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://caselawproject.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/tenant-fights-back/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/ca164a3a91d34857ae17b7604cf0e800?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=R" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">caselawproject</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Gregory v. Merchants State Bank</title>
		<link>http://caselawproject.wordpress.com/2008/11/05/gregory-merchants-state-bank/</link>
		<comments>http://caselawproject.wordpress.com/2008/11/05/gregory-merchants-state-bank/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:13:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>caselawproject</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Caselaw Project]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trial Court Case Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[accounting by defendant Dodson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civil procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ida L. Gregory]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://caselawproject.wordpress.com/?p=88</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Gregory v. Merchants State Bank, 135 S.W.2d 465 (Tenn. 1939). Two suits brought in the Chancery Court of Rutherford County were consolidated and heard together in that Court, and the Chancellor&#8217;s decree is here for review on two special or limited appeals. The bill in one of the cases (Rule No. 245) was filed by [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=caselawproject.wordpress.com&amp;blog=5127306&amp;post=88&amp;subd=caselawproject&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://caselawproject.wordpress.com/2008/11/05/gregory-merchants-state-bank/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/ca164a3a91d34857ae17b7604cf0e800?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=R" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">caselawproject</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
