Can anybody explain this?
Case Information
| Case Number: |
159887 |
| Case Title: |
HENDRICKS, PAUL M VS BLADORN, HERBERT |
| Case Type: |
EMINENT DOMAIN |
| Filing Date: |
06/24/13
Parties
| Name |
Type |
Attorney |
| HENDRICKS, PAUL M |
PLAINTIFF |
FERRIS & SELBY |
| |
TRUSTEE OF: PAUL M HENDRICKS & MARY L HENDRICKS REV TRUST |
| HENDRICKS, MARY L |
PLAINTIFF |
FERRIS & SELBY |
| |
TRUSTEE OF: PAUL M HENDRICKS & MARY L HENDRICKS REV TRUST |
| MALONEY, MICHAEL R |
PLAINTIFF |
FERRIS & SELBY |
| MALONEY, LAURIE A |
PLAINTIFF |
FERRIS & SELBY |
| BLADORN, HERBERT |
DEFENDANT |
|
| BLADORN, CHARLENE |
DEFENDANT |
|
| LINDA D HALBERT TRUST |
DEFENDANT |
|
| CHICO, CITY OF |
DEFENDANT |
EINHORN, GREGORY P |
| SORENSEN, PAMELA |
DEFENDANT |
|
| WILLINGHAM, SYLVESTER |
DEFENDANT |
*DEFAULT TAKEN* |
|
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
How much does they guy want? Retiring at age 50 with a pension well over $100,000 a year is insufficient gratitude for his service? Perhaps we should grovel at his feet and kiss his ring?
Well, I don’t even understand what’s going on – look at this thing. I won’t assume the Maloney’s are getting anything.
The reason I looked at the court index in the first place was to see what kind of litigation the city is dealing with right now. They go to court pretty regularly, everything from traffic violations committed within the city to “unlawful termination.”
I’ve been studying this since yesterday, on coffee breaks, and all I can come up with is, it involves an eminent domain in a rural neighborhood out by the airport. Look, the main litigants are two guys, but the city and the Maloneys are named – the city as “defendant”, the Maloneys as “plaintiffs”. I wish I could call Perry Mason to explain this – our courts need more sunshine. We should be able to read up on these cases and know what the hell our city is up to.