The other side of the bar in McIntosh v State Farm has been busy, too. Plaintiff’s, now represented by the Merlin Law Group, filed on Friday, the 23rd Evidence of Out of State Conduct which includes depositions taken in the Watkins v. State Farm suit in Oklahoma among the Exhibits – find them here under the State Farm tab at the Marr Law Firm site.
Plaintiff’s exhibits also include an affidavit from Stephen Strzelec, retired from State Farm where he worked in management positions from 1985 to 2002. Strzelec was an expert witness in Watkins v. State Farm (which I posted about here) and will be an expert witness for the Plaintiff in McIntosh v State Farm: Continue reading “Whoa! Not our Good Neighbor?”
Paraphrasing former Chief Justice Frankfurter, to suppose that ‘due process of law’ meant one thing when applied to the Rigsby sisters and another to everyone else is too frivolous to require elaborate rejection.
Consequently, I’ll keep this rejection simple.
Due process is best defined in one word-fairness. Throughout the U.S.’s history, its constitutions, statutes and case law have provided standards for fair treatment of citizens by federal, state and local governments. These standards are known as due process. When a person is treated unfairly by the government, including the courts, he is said to have been deprived of or denied due process.
The Relator’s attorneys from the two Missouri law firms disqualified by Judge Senter are due some process, too.
The Due Process Clause requires that judicial proceedings unfold according to the law, rather than according to the judiciary’s contrary opinions.
Justice Frankfurter spoke to that as well – It is a wise man who said that there is no greater inequality than the equal treatment of unequals.
As we pause to honor those who gave their lives for our freedom, it is only fitting to remember that our freedom was established by a Constitution that provides justice for all.
Judge Walker serves Rigsby sisters to State Farm on silver platter
State Farm takes torch back and burns Provost-Umphrey
The upside of not getting a post on the Landry decision written as breaking news on Wednesday is not having to write a retraction later saying it wasn’t that clear-cut after all.
There’s no question in my mind that policy holders are not entitled to payment for loss that wasn’t covered by the policy they purchased. Consequently, after reading Rebecca Mowbray’s prelude to the decision, it seemed like the issue before the Court was fairly simple. The story published on-line after midnight Tuesday night and shortly after noon on Wednesday, Mowbray reported the Court had sided with the defendant, Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation and remanded the case to the trial court to be tried on the facts.
Mowbray published a more in-depth report about the ruling on Thursday and revealed the issue before the court was far from simple. Continue reading “Louisiana Supreme Court tries to nail jello to a tree with Landry decision”