The Supreme Court holds that the district court did not err in holding that the prior complaint was a nullity, and that an amended complaint could not relate back to the filing of the original pro se complaint.
The Court also concludes the allegations do not demonstrate genuine issues of material fact, so the Court recommends that the judge find the proposed claim would likely be dismissed for Jones’ failure to show why the case would have to be submitted to a jury for resolution.
The Court says the requesting party must show there is a compelling need for the information, the information is not available from other sources, and the requesting party is using the least intrusive means to obtain the information.
At trial, McGill’s attorney, anticipating that the evidence of the check-kiting conviction would be brought up by DIA under cross-examination, asked her about the conviction and the underlying conduct.
The Legal Examiner offers both bloggers and readers the opportunity to share their thoughts and opinions on all things law. From news on current legislative efforts to practical guidance on everyday legal issues, The Legal Examiner will have it covered. Learn More