Police Shooting of Unarmed White Teen Sparks Lawsuit by Family Comments Off on Police Shooting of Unarmed White Teen Sparks Lawsuit by Family

Police Shooting of Unarmed White Teen Sparks Lawsuit by Family

Posted by on Dec 18, 2015 in Family Lawyer

What police are reporting as a drug bust gone wrong, can only be described as a tragedy for the family of a 19-year-old man named Zachary Hammond.

New details discovered during the ongoing investigation give rise to a lawsuit by Hammond’s family. They filed the suit to gain access to the police dashcam and other withheld information. Unfortunately, the state solicitor and investigators have refused to provide the detailed information.

The Teen’s Story

According to evidence and statements, Zachary Hammond and Tori Morton were on a first date. They stopped for ice-cream at McDonald’s and decided to get burgers at Hardees. But police were waiting for the couple when they arrived at Hardees.

According to police, Hammond threatened to run over them if they did not get out of his way. Reportedly, he tried to flee a drug deal arranged earlier that day with an undercover officer. As officers pulled up with flashing lights, Hammond tried to flee the scene. Lieutenant Mark Tiller commented; he “felt threatened” by Hammond and thought he was “trying to run him over.”

“‘I’ll blow your [expletive] head off,’ Were the last words heard by Hammond as he gave one last look at his date, Morton. The officers then shot Hammond, first in the back, and later in the head right in front of his date; while he was still seated in his car. After paramedics confirmed his death, Hammond’s body laid in the dirt for over 90 minutes; where it was subject to ant bites and high-fives from officers. The officers in question claim to have found marijuana on Morton and a white powder on Hammond. Thus, Morton was charged with a misdemeanor and Hammond lost his life.

Why This Lawsuit Needs More Investigation

The family is currently petitioning that prosecuting Judge Adams be removed from the case due to her involvement in the local police department and local agencies. Further, Adams refuses to make any statements, declaring that she cannot determine if Tiller is guilty or should be charged until more information is found.


Already both parties have performed autopsies and reviewed information. But the case remains unclear, the state has not released the police’s dashcam footage or ongoing investigation documents. The family lawyer, Eric Bland, did get a chance to look at cam footage and review the preliminary autopsy before the state and federal courts became involved. If you want to know about market legal services please visit how to market legal services?

Learn More
Colorado Product Liability Claim Filed Over Pesticides in Marijuana Comments Off on Colorado Product Liability Claim Filed Over Pesticides in Marijuana

Colorado Product Liability Claim Filed Over Pesticides in Marijuana

Posted by on Dec 18, 2015 in Tricks on a Lawsuit

Cannabis users prompt concerns as the first lawsuit of its kind in the U.S. over pesticide use in the growing of marijuana for recreational and medicinal use is filed.

Two plaintiffs in Colorado claim the use of a certain pesticide is unsafe in the production of marijuana. This case prompts a discussion over the chemical usage allowed in the industry. Unfortunately, the U.S. government still regards marijuana as an illicit drug, and thus, does not regulate safety guidelines for its production.

The Plaintiffs versus Livwell

The plaintiffs’ concern is the use of a fungicide called Eagle 20 EW, which is commonly used on grapes and hops. It is considered relatively safe for most crops, but considered harmful and dangerous when burned. The case maintains it should be banned for use on marijuana, just like it is for tobacco products.

A lawsuit was filed early in 2015, which resulted in the quarantine of thousands of plants, due to their possible contamination with the pesticide Eagle 20 EW. Livwell maintains that the product is safe. Their products were later released with pesticide levels considered within safe limits.

The plaintiffs maintain that Livwell needs to make recompense for using products that are not safe when burned on pot and not listed as safe by the government. As their attorney maintains, this case is about making the cannabis industry safe. Since the claim was filed, Livwell has ceased to use or sell Eagle 20 EW in any of its stores.

One Case of Cannabis Leads to Another

The Livwell case sparks further questions in the industry, such as the safety of the industry and the accuracy of organic labeling of cannabis. Seattle Attorney Alison Malsbury calls the lawsuit a “harbinger of things to come.” Although she isn’t involved in the present case, she has reviewed potential product liability within the cannabis industry and voiced her concerns.

Most of the states, which are now joining in as pot producers, simply have no regulations about pesticide use or labeling. Malsbury believes that states need to perform and develop comprehensive chemical testing to determine what pesticides are safe to use in conjunction with marijuana production.

The U.S Environmental Protection Agency has related to both Colorado and Washington that they can apply for regulation approvals in cannabis pesticide use. But, the special needs registration process could take years. Fortunately, no illnesses have been reported with the use of Livwell’s Eagle 20 EW product on cannabis.

Learn More
Summary of Basic American Legal Principles Comments Off on Summary of Basic American Legal Principles

Summary of Basic American Legal Principles

Posted by on Dec 17, 2015 in Legal Principles

The American legal system is based on a system of federalism, or decentralization. Most states have court systems which mirror that of the federal court system.
What follows are some of the fundamental principles that comprise the American legal system. They are summarized below in order to give the reader an overview of some of the basics of American common law.

Impact of Precedent—The Principle of Stare Decisis

Basically, under the doctrine of stare decisis, the decision of a higher court within the same provincial jurisdiction acts as binding authority on a lower court within that same jurisdiction. The decision of a court of another jurisdiction only acts as persuasive authority. The degree of persuasiveness is dependent upon various factors, including, first, the nature of the other jurisdiction.

Second, the degree of persuasiveness is dependent upon the level of court which decided the precedent case in the other jurisdiction. Other factors include the date of the precedent case, on the assumption that the more recent the case, the more reliable it will be as authority for a given proposition, although this is not necessarily so. And on some occasions, the judge’s reputation may affect the degree of persuasiveness of the authority.

Court Hierarchy

Court level or hierarchy defines to a great degree the extent to which a decision by one court will have a binding effect on another court. The federal court system, for instance, is based on a three-tiered structure, in which the United States District Courts are the trial-level courts; the United States Court of Appeals is the first level court of appeal; and the United States Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the law.


The term jurisdiction is really synonymous with the word “power”. Any court possesses jurisdiction over matters only to the extent granted to it by the Constitution, or legislation of the sovereignty on behalf of which it functions. Missouri has specific protection of employees known as the missouri personal injury lawyer. The question of whether a given court has the power to determine a jurisdictional question is itself a jurisdictional question. Such a legal question is referred to as “jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction.”

Mandatory / Binding versus Persuasive Authority

Some of the various sources of law that will be examined are considered to be “mandatory” or “binding,” while other sources are considered to be merely “persuasive.”
Indeed, a court may completely disregard precedent that is not binding (i.e., not even consider it to be persuasive). The issue of whether authority is mandatory or persuasive relates directly to the application of stare decisive principles.

Primary VS Secondary Authority

Primary versus Secondary Authority

The various sources of law may also be broken down into primary and secondary sources of law. Primary sources of law may be mandatory on a particular court, or they may be merely persuasive. Whether they are binding or persuasive will depend on various factors. Secondary authority is not itself law, and is never mandatory authority. A court may, however, look towards secondary sources of law for guidance as to how to resolve a particular issue. Secondary authority is also useful as a case finding tool and for general information about a particular issue.

Learn More

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This