White Collar – Motion and Memorandum in Support of Eurofed Bank Limited’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs
White Collar – Motion and Memorandum in Support of Eurofed Bank Limited’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs
This product is legally relevant in all U.S. 50 states and territories. This product comes in .docx (Microsoft Word) formats for your convenience.
Have any questions regarding this product? Please feel free to email: support@attorneydocs.com
Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Bill of Costs
Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Bill of Costs
Plaintiff Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Bill of Costs
Plaintiff Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Bill of Costs
Defendant’s Response and Objection to Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Bill of Costs
Defendant’s Response and Objection to Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Bill of Costs
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT FEE APPLICATION AND REQUEST FOR HEARING ON SAME PURSUANT TO C.R.C.P. 121
An objection to party’s request for attorney fees and costs.
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR CONTEMPT
A sample reply for plaintiff to compel with court order and also to pay attorney fees.
Order re Motion to Compel Compliance
The courts order on defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff to pay attorney fees.
Order on Motion to Compel
A signed court order on a motion for attorney fees.
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY ON ATTORNEY FEES
A motion for discovery on a request for attorney fees.
A Colorado Supreme Court order dealing with the exclusionary rule and driver license DMV
The Department of Revenue, through the Division of Motor Vehicles, revoked a driver’s license, following a hearing officer’s determination that the driver had driven a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content in excess of the statutory maximum. The district court reversed, holding that the initial stop of the driver’s vehicle was not supported by reasonable suspicion. The court of appeals reversed the district court and held that the legality of the initial contact between the police and the driver was not relevant in the civil administrative proceeding to revoke the driver’s license. The court also held that the exclusionary rule did not apply to suppress evidence of the driver’s BAC. The supreme court holds that, under section 42-2-126, C.R.S. (2011), “probable cause” in the context of the driver’s license revocation statute, as it existed at the time of the hearing in this case, refers to the quantum and quality of evidence necessary for a law enforcement officer to issue a notice of driver’s license revocation, not whether the officer’s initial contact with the driver was lawful. The supreme court further holds that the exclusionary rule did not apply to suppress evidence of the driver’s BAC in the driver’s license revocation proceeding. Accordingly, the supreme court affirms the judgment of the court of appeals.
Letter to Client Regarding Fees
a quick simple letter to client explaining to them that the court has issued an order for the other party to pay attorney fee however client is still responsible for it
Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil
Template Document