Anthony J. Bocchino

The plaintiff, Nita Fire and Casualty Company, brought this lawsuit to recover an amount paid to the defendant, Anthony J. Rubino, on a fire insurance policy on Rubino's business. Rubino was doing business as Rubino and Son, Dry Cleaners. A fire at the defendant's plant resulted in a total loss. The fire marshal determined that the fire was caused by spontaneous combustion. Relying on the report of the fire marshal, the plaintiff paid the defendant's claim in the amount of $300,000.00. After paying the claim, the plaintiff learned from a former employee of the defendant that the fire possibly was caused by arson. After it conducted an independent investigation, the plaintiff decided that the fire was set deliberately. Rubino has denied the allegation of arson.

In the Second Edition of Williams v. Simonson, plaintiff Mary Anne Williams seeks to recover damages for gender discrimination and the tort of defamation and is suing David Simonson, Christine Jefferson, Nita University, and the Patterson Institute. Williams seeks back pay, lost pay, damages, and reinstatement. There are five potential claims in this case file, which is set in a university environment: gender discrimination, quid pro quo sexual harassment, hostile work environment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and wrongful termination. Designed for advanced advocacy training, Williams involves difficult legal and factual issues for jury resolution and requires the examination of expert witnesses. There are two lay witnesses for the plaintiff and two for the defendant, plus one expert witness for each side. The exhibit files are available for digital download via a password-protected website accessible to students and faculty. Please note that Williams is available in four versions-Trial, Faculty, Plaintiff, and Defendant-each sold separately.

It's David versus Goliath when computer giant BMI sues startup Minicom for damages when a shipment of components that BMI sent to Minicom is lost. BMI claims that Minicom bore the risk of loss; it is suing to recover for breach of contract. Minicom claims it directed BMI to obtain insurance on the shipment and that BMI's failure to do so breached the contract, causing the loss of past and future profits. One of NITA's most popular cases, this well-balanced file has been updated with electronic evidence. BMI provides ample material for basic and advanced advocacy training with two witnesses for both plaintiff and defendant in the deposition version. The trial version includes one optional economics expert for each side. BMI is available as a trial file, or as deposition files with Plaintiff, Defendant, and Faculty versions, each sold separately. New to the Revised 11th Edition: Updated exhibits to correct dates and eliminate confusionProfessors and students will benefit from: A case file that can be used both for deposition practice and for mock trialsA time-tested case file that has been updated to include electronic exhibits

It's David versus Goliath when computer giant BMI sues startup Minicom for damages when a shipment of components that BMI sent to Minicom is lost. BMI claims that Minicom bore the risk of loss; it is suing to recover for breach of contract. Minicom claims it directed BMI to obtain insurance on the shipment and that BMI's failure to do so breached the contract, causing the loss of past and future profits. One of NITA's most popular cases, this well-balanced file has been updated with electronic evidence. BMI provides ample material for basic and advanced advocacy training with two witnesses for both plaintiff and defendant in the deposition version. The trial version includes one optional economics expert for each side. BMI is available as a trial file, or as deposition files with Plaintiff, Defendant, and Faculty versions, each sold separately. New to the Revised 11th Edition: Updated exhibits to correct dates and eliminate confusion Professors and students will benefit from: A case file that can be used both for deposition practice and for mock trials A time-tested case file that has been updated to include electronic exhibits

It's David versus Goliath when computer giant BMI sues startup Minicom for damages when a shipment of components that BMI sent to Minicom is lost. BMI claims that Minicom bore the risk of loss; it is suing to recover for breach of contract. Minicom claims it directed BMI to obtain insurance on the shipment and that BMI's failure to do so breached the contract, causing the loss of past and future profits. One of NITA's most popular cases, this well-balanced file has been updated with electronic evidence. BMI provides ample material for basic and advanced advocacy training with two witnesses for both plaintiff and defendant in the deposition version. The trial version includes one optional economics expert for each side. BMI is available as a trial file, or as deposition files with Plaintiff, Defendant, and Faculty versions, each sold separately. New to the Revised 11th Edition: Updated exhibits to correct dates and eliminate confusion Professors and students will benefit from: A case file that can be used both for deposition practice and for mock trials A time-tested case file that has been updated to include electronic exhibits

It's David versus Goliath when computer giant BMI sues startup Minicom for damages when a shipment of components that BMI sent to Minicom is lost. BMI claims that Minicom bore the risk of loss; it is suing to recover for breach of contract. Minicom claims it directed BMI to obtain insurance on the shipment and that BMI's failure to do so breached the contract, causing the loss of past and future profits. One of NITA's most popular cases, this well-balanced file has been updated with electronic evidence. BMI provides ample material for basic and advanced advocacy training with two witnesses for both plaintiff and defendant in the deposition version. The trial version includes one optional economics expert for each side. BMI is available as a trial file, or as deposition files with Plaintiff, Defendant, and Faculty versions, each sold separately. New to the Revised 11th Edition: Updated exhibits to correct dates and eliminate confusion Professors and students will benefit from: A case file that can be used both for deposition practice and for mock trials A time-tested case file that has been updated to include electronic exhibits

State v. Burns: Case File, Seventh Edition

An apple a day certainly won't keep the lawyers away. Produce broker Frisco Farm Corporation sold 25,000 pounds of apples to Blenheim Markets, with a contract clause stating that Blenheim could cancel the order within three business days. Blenheim tried to exercise that clause, but their email went astray. The apples were delivered, a thunderstorm destroyed most of the crop, and each of the parties believes the other is responsible for the loss. This short trial file revolves around two basic questions: what a contract is, and what constitutes a business day. The facts of the case are straightforward, and a variety of exhibits provide ample opportunity for evidence practice. The trial can be run in a single day, making this an attractive case for shorter programs. With four witnesses and a choice to try for either liability or damages, Frisco v. Blenheim is adaptable to your classroom needs.

Kiya Ahmed had an affair with her married boss, Paul Buckner. After that relationship soured, Kiya was denied partnership at Cooper & Stewart, the accounting firm where she and Paul both worked. Kiya claims discrimination and retaliation caused the denial. The defendants say that her inconsistent job performance lead to their decision. Who is right? This well-balanced case file can be won by either party. Ahmed v. Buckner is the new incarnation of the popular case file Polisi v. Clark. The defendant business is now an accounting firm, rather than a law firm. Updated exhibits include computer records, text messages, and emails, allowing lawyers to practice their skills in laying foundations. The deposition file has three witnesses for each side. The trial version includes two additional expert witnesses and their reports. Whether they are law students or practiced lawyers, this engaging case file will hone participants' advocacy skills.

Kiya Ahmed had an affair with her married boss, Paul Buckner. After that relationship soured, Kiya was denied partnership at Cooper & Stewart, the accounting firm where she and Paul both worked. Kiya claims discrimination and retaliation caused the denial. The defendants say that her inconsistent job performance lead to their decision. Who is right? This well-balanced case file can be won by either party. Ahmed v. Buckner is the new incarnation of the popular case file Polisi v. Clark. The defendant business is now an accounting firm, rather than a law firm. Updated exhibits include computer records, text messages, and emails, allowing lawyers to practice their skills in laying foundations. The deposition file has three witnesses for each side. The trial version includes two additional expert witnesses and their reports. Whether they are law students or practiced lawyers, this engaging case file will hone participants advocacy skills.

Kiya Ahmed had an affair with her married boss, Paul Buckner. After that relationship soured, Kiya was denied partnership at Cooper & Stewart, the accounting firm where she and Paul both worked. Kiya claims discrimination and retaliation caused the denial. The defendants say that her inconsistent job performance lead to their decision. Who is right? This well-balanced case file can be won by either party. Ahmed v. Buckner is the new incarnation of the popular case file Polisi v. Clark. The defendant business is now an accounting firm, rather than a law firm. Updated exhibits include computer records, text messages, and emails, allowing lawyers to practice their skills in laying foundations. The deposition file has three witnesses for each side. The trial version includes two additional expert witnesses and their reports. Whether they are law students or practiced lawyers, this engaging case file will hone participants' advocacy skills.

Kiya Ahmed had an affair with her married boss, Paul Buckner. After that relationship soured, Kiya was denied partnership at Cooper & Stewart, the accounting firm where she and Paul both worked. Kiya claims discrimination and retaliation caused the denial. The defendants say that her inconsistent job performance lead to their decision. Who is right? This well-balanced case file can be won by either party. Ahmed v. Buckner is the new incarnation of the popular case file Polisi v. Clark. The defendant business is now an accounting firm, rather than a law firm. Updated exhibits include computer records, text messages, and emails, allowing lawyers to practice their skills in laying foundations. The deposition file has three witnesses for each side. The trial version includes two additional expert witnesses and their reports. Whether they are law students or practiced lawyers, this engaging case file will hone participants' advocacy skills.

The Nita Bar Association has brought a four-count complaint against attorney Harriet Cooperman for violations of the disciplinary code. The Bar alleges that Cooperman failed to adequately consult with her client, David Engles, during the course of his action against the Acme Paper Company. The Bar also states: Cooperman failed to adequately explain the contents of her fee agreement; she represented clients with conflicting interests without first obtaining the informed consent; and finally, she represented a client against a former client in a cause of action. The first edition of this case file won the ABA's Gambrell Award for programming in the area of Professional Responsibility and Professionalism. The new edition adds social media evidence, giving students a richer opportunity to introduce and refer to exhibits. The case contains two lay witnesses and one expert for each party, making it a concise case file for teaching. New to the Third Edition: Changed names of some of the witnesses to be more diverse and gender neutral Patricia Simpson Pat Simpson James Doran Jamie Doran Mary Gallo Cosme Gallo Howard Marshall Nour Basara Added texts between Cooperman and her partner Edited mss to make the language more active and gender neutral

We live in an era when most litigation parties never see the inside of a courtroom. Cases are resolved by motion practice, by informal settlement, or by formal procedures such as arbitration and mediation. Rarely does an attorney get to say, "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury . . . ." Does this change render deposition practice obsolete? Quite the opposite-depositions are more important than ever. Instead of a battle between attorneys who are trying to hide their evidence for trial, depositions are the place to put your best case forward, establish your case theories, explore the strengths and weaknesses of your case, and prepare your disposition strategy, be it a motion for summary judgment, a settlement offer, or mediation. Taking effective depositions in this changed environment involves a new paradigm, a whole new way of thinking about the discovery process. This book will guide you through that process, from interviewing and preparing your client through theory building and expert testimony. It also deals with concrete issues like creating a clean, understandable deposition record that will benefit your case throughout the litigation process. With its Q&A format and its many examples, The Deposition Tutorial will become the book you want on your desk for quick reference.

In the Second Edition of Williams v. Simonson, plaintiff Mary Anne Williams seeks to recover damages for gender discrimination and the tort of defamation and is suing David Simonson, Christine Jefferson, Nita University, and the Patterson Institute. Williams seeks back pay, lost pay, damages, and reinstatement. There are five potential claims in this case file, which is set in a university environment: gender discrimination, quid pro quo sexual harassment, hostile work environment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and wrongful termination. Designed for advanced advocacy training, Williams involves difficult legal and factual issues for jury resolution and requires the examination of expert witnesses. There are two lay witnesses for the plaintiff and two for the defendant, plus one expert witness for each side. The exhibit files are available for digital download via a password-protected website accessible to students and faculty. Please note that Williams is available in four versions-Trial, Faculty, Plaintiff, and Defendant-each sold separately.

In the Second Edition of Williams v. Simonson, plaintiff Mary Anne Williams seeks to recover damages for gender discrimination and the tort of defamation and is suing David Simonson, Christine Jefferson, Nita University, and the Patterson Institute. Williams seeks back pay, lost pay, damages, and reinstatement. There are five potential claims in this case file, which is set in a university environment: gender discrimination, quid pro quo sexual harassment, hostile work environment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and wrongful termination. Designed for advanced advocacy training, Williams involves difficult legal and factual issues for jury resolution and requires the examination of expert witnesses. There are two lay witnesses for the plaintiff and two for the defendant, plus one expert witness for each side. The exhibit files are available for digital download via a password-protected website accessible to students and faculty. Please note that Williams is available in four versions-Trial, Faculty, Plaintiff, and Defendant-each sold separately.

In the Second Edition of Williams v. Simonson, plaintiff Mary Anne Williams seeks to recover damages for gender discrimination and the tort of defamation and is suing David Simonson, Christine Jefferson, Nita University, and the Patterson Institute. Williams seeks back pay, lost pay, damages, and reinstatement. There are five potential claims in this case file, which is set in a university environment: gender discrimination, quid pro quo sexual harassment, hostile work environment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and wrongful termination. Designed for advanced advocacy training, Williams involves difficult legal and factual issues for jury resolution and requires the examination of expert witnesses. There are two lay witnesses for the plaintiff and two for the defendant, plus one expert witness for each side. The exhibit files are available for digital download via a password-protected website accessible to students and faculty. Please note that Williams is available in four versions-Trial, Faculty, Plaintiff, and Defendant-each sold separately.

A high-school football star, John Fulbright, is thrown from his motorcycle and severely injured when it collides with a Cadillac that just pulled out of a parking lot. Most of the witnesses say Fulbright was speeding and not wearing a helmet, but a fourteen-year-old boy says otherwise. There is evidence that the Cadillac's driver, Andrew Parker, an Americraft employee, had been drinking. The plaintiff claims he became an epileptic as a result of his injuries. There is not a helmet law in the State of Nita. There are four witnesses for both the plaintiff and the defendants.