DEFENDING YOUR RIGHTS, FIGHTING FOR YOU www.lawyersreadytofight.com 317-934-9725
PRST STD US POSTAGE PAID BOISE, ID PERMIT 411
156 East Market Street, 13th Floor Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
INSIDE THIS ISSUE From the Desks of Razumich & Delamater PAGE 1 The First American Road Trip PAGE 1 Exploring the River of No Return PAGE 2 Dogs in Ancient Legend PAGE 3 Take a Break PAGE 3 No. 1 Dad Hash Browns PAGE 3 Crazy Lawsuits Surrounding the Dearly Departed PAGE 4 We pride ourselves on being a country where everyone receives a fair trial. And while that’s not always the case, even the craziest claims still have to be heard in some capacity by a court of law. As you can imagine, this can result in plenty of spooky high jinks in the courtroom. Let’s take a look at some of the more baffling court cases in recent memory. DEAD MAN TALKING In something straight out of a Coen brothers movie, a NewYork man had to sue The NewYork Times on three separate occasions to get them to stop reporting that he was dead. In all fairness, it seemed like an honest mistake prolonged by the ineptitude of his public counsel and a whole lot of terrible coincidences all rolled into one. Juan Antonio Arias just so happened to share the same first and last name as one“Juan Arias”who hadmet his untimely demise. After it was reported in a Times article, the living Arias accidentally had his own date of birth and
LAWSUITS FROMBEYOND
Let’s Hope There’s a Courtroom in the Afterlife
Social Security number added to the death certificate of his now deceased namesake in a terrible mix-up from the coroner. As a result, he sued on three occasions after his lawyer missed certain deadlines to turn in proper documents. Thankfully, the issue was resolved, but not before he had his credit cards and Medicaid revoked after appearing to be dead. SOLEMNLY SPOOKED An unnamed NewYork resident — just what on earth is going on in NewYork?—claimed that the house they’d recently purchased was horribly and cripplingly haunted by unseen
forces. The poltergeist was said to disrupt their daily activity, and the plaintiff was suing on the grounds that the home was notorious in the area for being haunted and had a reputation as such, therefore it should have been disclosed to the buyer before closing. They won. That’s right; the court ruled that the seller misled the plaintiff and should have disclosed the nature of this potentially harmful house. Shockingly enough, this type of thing is required to be disclosed when selling a house in NewYork. Well, at least a buyer will have peace of mind knowing that they got a sweet new pad and a ghoul for pennies on the dollar.
4 • www.lawyersreadytofight.com
Published by The Newsletter Pro • www.newsletterpro.com
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online