If you've been involved in an auto accident caused by speeding, drunk driving (DWI), unsafe lane changes, following too closely, running red lights & stop signs, reckless truck drivers, or any other cause, the Salazar Law Firm ask you to keep the following in mind: Insurance companies are in the business of making money, not paying policies. If the insurance company is giving you the run-around, call an attorney today.
If you've been injured in an accident, your claim may be significantly weakened if you don't take the right steps. Get medical treatment for your pain and injuries as soon as possible. Insurance companies pay close attention to “lapses in treatment” and whether or not you sought treatment immediately after the accident happened.
The Salazar Law Firm is a Houston based firm that has expertise in defending clients facing auto accidents and insurance claims. Their attorneys understand the physical, emotional, and financial burden an car accident or personal injury can be on an individual and their families. Their goal is to lessen the stress for their clients by managing the complex procedures with insurance companies, medical facilities, and opposing insurance defense lawyers. They have the experience you need and give the attention you deserve. Visit http://www.hurtinhouston.com for more information.
Monday, June 18, 2012
Eugene Criminal Defense Lawyer - Coit & Associates, P.C.
Coit & Associates, P.C., with offices in Eugene and Portland, have criminal defense lawyers acknowledged for providing the highest quality representation in the greater Eugene and Portland metropolitan locations. No matter the size or seriousness of your case, a lawyer at Coit & Associates, P.C. will aggressively tackle the case and understand its importance to you and your family. The attorneys at Coit & Associates, P.C. not only have the experience to represent you but will not back down from anyone. Their goal is to provide their clients with efficient, aggressive, and affordable criminal defense that is effective. Their attorneys care for the defendents charged with or suspected of committing crimes and will fight for you.
Call their office at (541) 685-1288 to schedule an appointment or visit us on http://www.criminaldefenseoregon.com for more information.
Call their office at (541) 685-1288 to schedule an appointment or visit us on http://www.criminaldefenseoregon.com for more information.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Court: Reinstate Ohio suit alleging Duke kickbacks
A federal appeals court on Monday ordered reinstatement of a lawsuit that accuses Duke Energy Corp. of paying kickbacks to big Cincinnati-area companies to win their support for a 2004 electricity rate increase.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati reversed a federal judge's 2009 decision and reinstated the 2008 antitrust lawsuit filed on behalf of some Ohio businesses and individuals who bills rose.
The district court judge had concluded that federal courts lacked jurisdiction over the case and that the Ohio Public Utilities Commission, which approved the rate increase, had exclusive jurisdiction over state-law claims.
The three-judge appeals panel, however, said in its unanimous ruling that the lower court was incorrect and that "no circumstances exist here that would deprive the district court of jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state-law claims."
The lawsuit claims that, in 2004, the utility known then as Cinergy Corp. paid off large corporate customers who opposed the rate increase request. The lawsuit alleges that the opposition ended after the companies signed rebate deals with Duke.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati reversed a federal judge's 2009 decision and reinstated the 2008 antitrust lawsuit filed on behalf of some Ohio businesses and individuals who bills rose.
The district court judge had concluded that federal courts lacked jurisdiction over the case and that the Ohio Public Utilities Commission, which approved the rate increase, had exclusive jurisdiction over state-law claims.
The three-judge appeals panel, however, said in its unanimous ruling that the lower court was incorrect and that "no circumstances exist here that would deprive the district court of jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state-law claims."
The lawsuit claims that, in 2004, the utility known then as Cinergy Corp. paid off large corporate customers who opposed the rate increase request. The lawsuit alleges that the opposition ended after the companies signed rebate deals with Duke.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)