Why hire a lawyer after a truck accident?

After being involved in an accident with a truck, you may wonder what the next step is, and if you should contact an attorney. Whether you were the driver of the truck, a driver of another vehicle, or a bicyclist/pedestrian, its important to know that you may actually be eligible to receive compensation for your injuries. Accident liability can be a very complicated area, so we recommend hiring an attorney. One of the first steps to take is to determine everyone who was involved in the accident. This includes all people who were physically there and affected by the accident, including drivers, passengers, pedestrians, bicyclists, etc. What is surprising, however, are the parties involved you may not have taken into consideration. This includes insurance companies, employers, vehicle manufacturers, government entities, trucking companies, or contractors. One advantage of using an attorney is that using their legal resources, they can quickly help you identify any parties involved in the litigation. Armed with this knowledge, you’ll be able to recover the maximum amount of damages for your injury. Next, make sure to receive medical treatment for your injuries. Keep up with all doctor/hospital visits, prescriptions, care plans etc. and don’t forget to keep copies of all related documentation. If your financial situation makes this a difficult step to take, please contact Hurt in Houston at 281.857.6770 to discuss how we can help. You’ll also likely be contacted by insurance companies who are trying to offer you a settlement – just remember, they are more than likely offering a far smaller sum than you are actually entitled to. It’s also prudent to understand how damages are rewarded, and these laws vary between states. Your case could fall under pure contributory negligence, pure comparative fault, or modified comparative fault (the latter has multiple provisions depending on the state). For example, in a state that rules under modified comparative fault with a 51 percent bar rule, any involved party is not entitled to damages if it is determined they are 51% or more responsible for the accident. If you’re in a state that practices pure contributory negligence, you won’t get any payout if you are even 1% at fault. Sound confusing? It becomes even less comprehendible when you take into consideration the multiple statutes attached to these laws – statutes that could, ultimately, affect your individual case in a way you don’t anticipate. Most importantly, don’t waste any time. Auto accidents often take into consideration many external factors like weather, road conditions, etc., and these external factors can be considered evidence. Often times and there is also a statute of limitations regarding these cases (which means if you wait too long to take action, you won’t be entitled to any reward at all). Hurt in Houston offers free case evaluations, so don’t waste in any time in contacting us. You can fill out a short form here, or call us at 281.857.6770. Read more on truck accidents on our truck accidents page.

Appeals court won't reinstate 1990 arson-murder conviction

An elderly man who spent 24 years in prison for his daughter's death in a fire will remain free after a federal appeals court in Pennsylvania on Wednesday refused to reinstate his murder conviction.

Han Tak Lee, 80, a native of South Korea who earned U.S. citizenship, was exonerated and freed last year after a judge concluded the case against him was based on since-discredited scientific theories about arson. Prosecutors appealed, saying that other evidence pointed to his guilt.

The Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the appeal, meaning Lee will stay out of prison.

The New York City shop owner had taken his 20-year-old, mentally ill daughter to a religious retreat in Pennsylvania's Pocono Mountains where, prosecutors say, he set fire to their cabin. Lee has long contended the 1989 fire was accidental.

Lee, who returned to Queens after his release from prison, did not answer his phone Wednesday. He told The Associated Press in an interview last month that he still loved America and "I expect America to make the right decision."

His attorney, Peter Goldberger, called on prosecutors to let the ruling stand.

"I hope, now, that they will finally see there is no basis for this conviction," Goldberger said. "They can say it's nobody's fault, that science changed, that this is over now, and the federal court has had the last word."

Largo Bankruptcy Attorney

Financial situations can involve great amounts of stress and anxiety, and complicate the home atmosphere. At Watson & Moran we are prepared to give solid resolutions the stresses caused by troubled finances. We aim to provide personal, one-on-one solutions that guide you through bankruptcy.

Clients are in good hands with our knowledgeable bankruptcy lawyers. Keeping creditors away is our priority, and we help our clients to hold on to their homes, vehicles and other property. We can help you with a fresh start, relieving your debt and helping you move on with your life. Contact a Largo Bankruptcy Attorney at Watson & Moran to begin moving past your troubled finances.

Click here to find a bankruptcy lawyer and make a fresh start >>

Maine court: Anti-gay marriage group must disclose donors

Maine's highest court on Tuesday rejected a national anti-gay marriage group's latest bid to shield the identities of the donors who contributed to its effort to defeat the state's gay marriage law in 2009.

The National Organization for Marriage had sought permission to delay submitting a campaign finance report that the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices ordered it to file last year when it fined the group $50,250 for its involvement in overturning the law supporting same-sex marriage six years ago.

But the Maine Supreme Judicial Court said Tuesday that NOM can't put off filing the report and revealing its donor list until after the court considers the group's challenge of the commission's ruling because the justices said it's unlikely that the Washington D.C.-based organization will win its appeal.

Maine Attorney General Janet Mills praised the court's decision, saying that Maine residents deserve to know who's paying to influence their elections.

"Enough is enough," Mills said in a statement. "NOM has fought for almost six years to skirt the law and to shield the names of the out-of-state donors who bank-rolled their election efforts. The time has come for them to finally comply with state law like everyone else."

After Maine's same-sex marriage law was overturned at the ballot box in 2009, it was legalized again by voters in 2012.

Maine's ethics commission ruled last year that the group broke the law by not registering as a ballot question committee and not filing campaign finance reports despite playing a central role in the 2009 referendum. The commission said the group gave nearly $2 million to Stand for Marriage Maine, the political action committee that led the repeal effort.

NOM has already paid the fine, which is thought to be the largest campaign finance penalty in state history.

But the group maintains that it followed the law, arguing that none of its donations were raised specifically for the purposes of defeating Maine's same-sex marriage law. The group, which has long fought in Maine courts to keep its donor list secret, said that revealing their identities will make people weary to contribute in the future.

Brian Brown, president of NOM, said Tuesday that he needs to discuss the decision with his lawyer to determine the group's next steps. But he said he believes that NOM is being unfairly penalized by the commission and the court because of its views on marriage.

"These are all unjust, illegitimate decisions," Brown said. "It does not bode well for the body politic when the judges and the ethics commission get to punish those they disagree with."

The supreme court acknowledged that forcing NOM to disclose their donor list will likely make the group's appeal of the commission's decision moot.

But the justices said that NOM hasn't put forward any persuasive constitutional challenges to the commission's decision or shown that the panel made any errors in reaching its conclusion, and therefore, hasn't proven that it will has a good chance of succeeding in its appeal.