Laidlaw Energy Group, Inc.(fka LLEG)

[nez]

JMO, but to the best of my knowledge this isn't scheduled to be decided or published until the May, 28th.
Also, let me be clear, I am not even sure the commentary I read or heard, about what is or isn't happening in NY as well as the circumstances surrounding the situation are even accurate. If however, if these suppositions/opinions, rumors (I am not certain which applies) are at least close to reality and the issue (at least the opening salvo) is going to be decided in some manner which would require or at least can be appealed, I wonder where the extra cash for the "WAR Chest" Would come from as with all the talk of the auditors being busy, IMO, most monies could quite possibly have been allocated for one thing or another and if that is the case and extra financial resources were required for the usual legal fees, where would that money come from I wonder?



SUMMARY JUDGEMENT - A decision made on the basis of statements and evidence presented for the record without a trial. It is used when there is no dispute as to the facts of the case, and one party is entitled to judgement as a matter of law.

A material fact is one which might affect the outcome of the case under governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). To preclude summary judgment, the dispute about a material fact must also be "genuine," such that a reasonable jury could find in favor of the non-moving party. Id.

Conclusory or speculative testimony is insufficient to raise a genuine issue of fact to defeat summary judgment. See, e.g., Falls Riverway Realty, Inc. v. Niagara Falls, 754 F.2d 49 (2d Cir. 1985); Thornhill Publishing Co. v. GTE Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 738 (9th Cir. 1979).

In general, inadmissible hearsay evidence may not be considered on a motion for summary judgment. Blair Foods, Inc. v. Ranchers Cotton Oil, 610 F.2d 665, 667 (9th Cir. 1990).

Summary judgment is properly granted when the evidence in support of the moving party establishes that there is no issue of material fact to be tried. (Code Civ. Proc., section 437c; Mann v. Cracchiolo (1985) 38 Cal.3d 18, 35.) The court is required to consider all the evidence set forth in the papers, except where objections are properly sustained, and all inferences reasonably deducible from such evidence. Any doubts as to the propriety of granting the motion must be resolved in favor of the party opposing the motion. (Asare v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 856, 862.) If the court determines there is no triable issue of fact, the court will determine any remaining issues of law. (Pittelman v. Pearce (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1436, 1441.)

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s102.htm


However, this is going to happen tonight although apparently the location changed. (see web site if planning on attending)
JMO,
Nez

Zoning Board of Adjustment

Wednesday May 21, 2008

Henniker Community Center (57 Main Street)

7pm Meeting Agenda

http://www.henniker.org/agendas/zbagenda.htm#agenda