Boston, MA - Boston, Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer represented Defendant, Jaime L. Mulvihill, charged with fraud.

The principal and co-founder of a North Andover mortgage short sale assistance company was sentenced connection with defrauding mortgage lenders and investors out of nearly $500,000 in proceeds from about 90 short sale transactions.

Jaime L. Mulvihill, 40, was

¶0 1. APPEAL AND ERROR - Supreme Court Without Jurisdiction to Determine Questions of Fact and Law New and Different From Those Involved When Case Presented on Appeal.
In an appellate proceeding the Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction to try and determine questions of fact and law new and different from those involved in the case when it was presented on appeal.
2. MECHANICS

The Privette/Hooker doctrine limits the circumstances
in which the hirer of an independent contractor can be liable for
injuries to the contractor’s employees. (Privette v. Superior Court
(1993) 5 Cal.4th 689; Hooker v. Department of Transportation
(2002) 27 Cal.4th 198 (Hooker).) In a negligence action, the hirer
of an independent contractor may be liable to the contractor�

After defendant 21st Mortgage Corporation foreclosed on her home, plaintiff
Earline Williams brought this action alleging defendant interfered with her rights under
California law, breached its contract with her, acted negligently, and committed elder
financial abuse. In particular, plaintiff alleges that she should have been able to avoid
foreclosure by tendering the amount then i

November 2015, the Board of Supervisors (Board) of the County of Kern
approved a new zoning ordinance requiring permits for new oil and gas exploration,
drilling and production. The ordinance imposed a wide range of environmental and other
standards on permit applicants. It also adopted two procedural pathways for obtaining
permits when the proposed activity would be conducted on s

The Jon Corn Law Firm, Jonathan C. Corn, Anders T. Aannestad, Arie L.
Spangler and Lee M. Andelin, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
This case concerns an appeal and cross appeal from the trial court's ruling on a
petition for writ of administrative mandate that James and Karla Lindstrom (the
Lindstroms) filed against the California Coastal Commission (the Commission)
challenging