Top 10
Civil Litigation in San Luis Obispo

Home | Main Page | Advertise With Us | Sitemap


Civil Litigation in
93401, 93402, 93403, 93405, 93406, 93407, 93408, 93409, 93410, 93412
Finding A Seasoned Lawyer No matter what your legal needs are you will recognize that there are countless lawyers in your neighborhood that advertise that they specialize in your sort of case. This could make the entire process of finding one with a lot of experience a bit of a challenge. However, in the event you follow the following it will be easy to restrict your research to the right one in almost no time. Step one is to generate a set of the lawyers which are listed in your town focusing on your position. While you are causeing this to be list you need to only include those you have an excellent vibe about based on their advertisement. You can then narrow this list down if you take a bit of time evaluating their site. There you must be able to find the number of years they have been practicing and several general information regarding their success rates. At this stage your list must have shrunken further to individuals that you just felt had professional websites as well as an appropriate volume of experience. You ought to then take the time to look up independent reviews for each attorney. Be sure you see the reviews rather than just counting on their overall rating. The info from the reviews will give you a concept of the way they connect to the clientele and how much time they invest into each case they are working on. Finally, you will want to talk with at the very least the final three lawyers which have the credentials you are interested in. This gives you enough time to genuinely evaluate how interested they may be in representing you and the case. It is actually vital that you follow many of these steps to ensure that you hire a company that has the proper degree of experience to get you the very best outcome.

ACTIONPages is your local directory publisher. Serving markets in Arizona, California, Washington, and Canada. ACTIONPages the best local choice for cost-effective advertising.
Some of the cites we server are, California Grover Beach | Pismo Beach | Nipomo | Arroyo Grande | San Luis Obispo | SLO | Morro Bay | Los Osos Orcutt Ojai Arizona | Lake Havasu | Kingman | Bullhead | Prescott | Payson | Show Low | Snowflake | Taylor | Flagstaff Sedona | Cottonwood | Camp Verde | Williams | Washington | Skagit | Whatcom | Bellingham | Ferndale Lynden Mount Vernon | Sedro Woolley | Burlington | Oak Harbor | Anacortes | Camano Island | Stanwood | Arlington Langley Clinton | San Juan Islands | BC | Duncan | Port Alberni | Comox | Courtney | Campbell River | Parksville | Langley Maple ridge | Chilliwack | Abbotsford | Mission | Whistler | Squamish | Sunshine Coast | Terrace | Kitimat | Smithers Prince Rupert | Prince George | Williams Lake | Quesnel | Sidney | Victoria | Alberta | Red Deer | Lloydminster | Ontario | Sudbury | Sault Ste Marie | North Bay | Timmins | Muskoka | Gravenhurst | Parry Sound | Huntsville | Kingston | Belleville | Cornwall | Brockville | Dundas | Pembroke | Renfrew | Smith Falls | Cobourg

Filing Agreed Upon Custody Papers Without Lawyers?
My Ex Boyfriend And I Agreed Upon A Custody Arrangement Of Our Three Children. We Would Like To File The Papers Ourselves In A Texas Court Without Having To Both Cough Up Lots Of Money For Lawyers. We Need To Know What Papers To File And Where To Find Them. Any Help?

Consider using a certified mediator to create the final document. This is a paralegal or attorney with specialized training. It would cost you about $300 each.

These are factors to be consider

Soul custody
Joint legal custody
Joint physical custody
Bird Nesting

How close do you live to him?
How old is the child?

Who covers medical insurance?
Who decides on treatment

Child Support
How much and how long?
Is support paid through college?
What is the minimum credit hours the child must take?
Who gets the tax deduction?

If the residential parent dies, who gets the child? Never assume anything.

May I ask why the divorce or separation? It's very important that the child have both parents in the home. Is there nothing that can be done toward this end?

Here's a few books that might help.

Stupid Things Parents Do to Mess Up Their Kids

Ten Stupid Things Couples do to Mess up Their Relationships

The Proper Care and Feeding of Marriage

BIRD nest Custody.
It’s a form of access or custody where the children stay in the former family residence and it is the parents who rotate in and out separately and on a negotiated schedule.

The children simply live at "home" and the separated or divorced parents take turns living with them there, but never at the same time.

The core element of this arrangement is that each parent maintains a separate residence where they live when it is not their turn at the "bird's nest". When one parent arrives for his/her designated time, the other vacates right away, so as to minimize or eliminate the presence of both at the same time.

At times, bird's nest access can be coupled with specified access with the other parent say, for example, for dinner one night a week.

Sometimes, this form of access or custody will end when the youngest child reaches the age of majority at which time, one parent either buys the other out of their interest, if any, in the former family residence, or it is sold and the proceeds divided pursuant to the matrimonial property regime or separation agreement.

The arrangement can be expensive as it generally requires that three separate residences be maintained, the "nest" and a separate residence for each parent.

The concept is somewhat novel and appears to have as its origin a Virginia case Lamont v Lamont.
In Canada, Greenough v Greenough was a ground-breaker case in that the Court implemented a bird's nest custody order even though it had not been asked for by either party. Justice Quinn, in Greenough stated:

"In Lamont ... the court made a bird’s nest custody arrangement in which the children (aged 3 and 5 years) remained in the home, with the mother staying in the home during the week and the father on the weekend. I think that the benefits of a bird’s nest order are best achieved where the children are able to stay in the matrimonial home, particularly if it has been the only residence that they have known....

"Time and time again I have seen cases (and this is one) where the children are being treated as Frisbees. In general, parents do not seem to appreciate the gross disruption to which children are subjected where one of the parents has frequent access. In this regard, I do not believe there must be evidence that the children are suffering before the court is free to act. To me, it is a matter of common sense. At the risk of falling prey to simplistic generalities, I am of the view that, given a choice, I do not see why anyone would select a living arrangement which involved so much movement from house to house."

What Is The Highest Amount That A Parent Can Recover From A Wrongful Death Lawsuit?
Is It True That In A Wrongful Death Lawsuit That The Parent Can Only Recover Up To 250,000.00?

California has a law that says you cannot recover more than $250,000 for pain and suffering in a medical malpractice lawsuit against a health care provider. Statutes that limit recover in wrongful death lawsuits, if any, will vary by state. What may be true in California isn't necessarily true in Texas, so it isn't really possibly to answer your question unless you disclose where you are from.

Is It Legal To Download Stuff From Wikileaks?
As Some (Most?) Of The Documents On The Site Are Illegal To Spread, Are They Illegal To Read Too? You'D Suppose So, Right?

It may be illegal to participate in the actual leaking of classified information, but in the United States, neither the federal nor state governments may make it illegal to distribute it once it has been leaked, and certainly it is *not* illegal to read.

In the famous Pentagon Papers case during the Nixon era (involving leaked top-secret documents from the pentagon relating to the ongoing Vietnam War, showing that the government had been lying to the people), the U.S. Supreme Court famously said this when the Government tried to halt the publication of these secret documents. *READ IT ALL* :

From New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971):

"[T]o hold that the publication of news may sometimes be enjoined . . . would make a shambles of the First Amendment.

Our Government was launched in 1789 with the adoption of the Constitution. Now, for the first time in the 182 years since the founding of the Republic, the federal courts are asked to hold that the First Amendment does not mean what it says, but rather means that the Government can prevent the publication of [information].

The Executive Branch seems to have forgotten the essential purpose and history of the First Amendment. When the Constitution was adopted, many people strongly opposed it because the document contained no Bill of Rights to safeguard certain basic freedoms. They especially feared that the new powers granted to a central government might be interpreted to permit the government to curtail freedom of religion, press, assembly, and speech. In response to an overwhelming public clamor, James Madison offered a series of amendments to satisfy citizens that these great liberties would remain safe and beyond the power of government to infringe. Madison proposed what later became the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights changed the original Constitution into a new charter under which no branch of government could abridge the people's freedoms of press... Yet the government has argued...that the Constitution should be interpreted to limit the specific and emphatic guarantees of the Bill of Rights.

We can imagine no greater perversion of history. Madison and the other Framers of the First Amendment wrote in language they earnestly believed could never be misunderstood: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom . . . of the press . . . ." Both the history and language of the First Amendment support the view that the press must be left free to publish news, whatever the source, without censorship.

The Founding Fathers gave a free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the people, not the government.

The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could lay bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government.

And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. Far from deserving condemnation for their courageous reporting, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other newspapers should be commended for serving the purpose that the Founding Fathers saw so clearly. In revealing the workings of government that led to the Vietnam war, the newspapers nobly did precisely that which the Founders hoped and trusted they would do.

The words "National Security" are a broad, vague generality whose contours may not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in our First Amendment. The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic, [and we will not allow it.]"

Any Good Websites To Find Criminal Records? Or Lawyers?

About half of the states have databases where the public can do an "inmate search" of current and former state inmates. The info includes what each person was convicted of and when they may receive parole. Here's the New York State site:

To find sites for other states go to a search engine, type in the name of the state then these two words: department corrections.

Here's the link to the inmate locator for federal prisoners:

As for lawyers, each state has a state bar website that will let you research a lawyer's education and other information.

Is This Legal By Law.?
Is This Legal By Law. A Married Woman Who I Was Seeing Taped . Me And Her I Knew It . But There. Things On There . The Tape Can Well Draw Time In Jail. Is It Legal By Law If Her Husband Uses It . Thanks

by law very legal seem.s you not to bright of a cookie are you .her husband canuse them and it.s legal pal. my honest opion?

Why Have We Allowed Lawyers To Control And Ruin Our Society?
They Should Only Have &Quot;Domain&Quot; In A Court-Room - No Where Else!!! They Are Now Writing Our Laws (Elected Officials Used To Do This). They Are Doing All Of The Work Our Our Idiotic Affirmative Action And Senile Federal Judges. These Parasites Are Controlling Every Aspect Of Business Thanks To Frivolous Lawsuits And Threats Of Lawsuits At Every Turn. If You Want To Know Why Our Jobs Are All In Asia - Blame It On The Lawyers. That'S The Real Reason. Ask Any Employer Or Company. It'S Pretty Damn Hard To Tell The Chinese What To Do, No Matter If You Are A Harvard Law Graduate Valedictorian With A Good J'Wish Name.. The Chinese Can Tell The Greedy Scum Lawyers To Pound Sand. If A Ceo In This Country Does That, He'Ll Be In Court For The Rest Of His Life, With Hateful Lawyers All Over Him Like Flies On Poop. Why Can&Quot;T We Reign In These Parasites, Once And For All??????????

Get a clue....

Elected officials have nearly always been mostly lawyers, dating back to the first English parliamentary elections.

Lawyers do no instigate lawsuits - non-lawyers do. When you or I come to a lawyer and wanting to file a lawsuit, the lawyer does as they're asked - it's up to a JURY to decide guilt or innocence. JURIES are the reason for outrageously-sized damage awards not lawyers.

Businessmen are the ones who use lawyers to conduct business - the lawyers do not decide guilt or innocence they leave that up to a jury. Our justice system depends on a well-educated and well-informed involved citizenry. The reason things are falling apart, is not because of the lawyers - it's because the population at-large (where juries come from) has become less-educated and more prone to knee-jerk emotionally based reactions or world views based on emotion not fact.

Jobs are being exported to Asia because a certain political party is pro-business & anti-union. The pro-business party has passed laws allowing "offshoring" and "right shoring" and H1-B visas every chance they got.

Contrary to popular belief, lawyers (especially criminal defense lawyers), are part of the checks and balances against an overwhelmingly powerful government... would you want the government to be able to decide guilt or innocence without thoroughly proving their case at a trial? Imagine where that would lead... without defense lawyers the government would very quickly become tyrannical.