Brand et. al. v. Johnson et. al.
Aug 05, 2010OUTCOME: Judgment in favor of My Clients
Plaintiffs sued my clients alleging that their Property was a Public and Private Nuisance. Plaintiffs (neighbors in surrounding properties) alleged the tenants of my clients' Property were involved in ... drug activity, or were somehow connected to the drug dealing that occurred on a nearby corner. At Trial, Plaintiffs put on TWENTY ONE witnesses, including police officers, investigators, tenants, all 8 Plaintiffs, a criminalist, Housing Authority etc. However, in successful cross-examination, I was able to prove that there was no causal connection between the drug activity at the nearby corner and the Property. I was also able to establish in cross-examination that there was no evidence that any of our tenants had actually participated in drug activity, or that there was any drug activity ON the Property, or that my clients were aware of any nuisance activity and failed to act. Therefore at the end of Plaintiffs' case, I brought a Motion for a Direct Verdict - and the Judge granted it (after thinking about it for a few days).
