I hear this was Nancy Turbak's case...
Someone tells me that this case was being helmed by Senator Nancy Turbak on Eugene Kent's behalf:
What does it mean politically? Not a darned thing. But it does confirm that Nancy is one of the top trial lawyers in in this state, as I've heard more than once. Even if her client doesn't get to keep the $27.4 million.
Speaking of Senator Turbak, in addition to her legal duties, she did some pro bono defense work on behalf of our congresswoman in the Argus Leader today:
A man awarded $27.4 million by a jury after a federal court trial in Aberdeen now stands to get nothing.Read it all here in the Aberdeen American News. A review of the prior hearing indicates that what I heard could be true:
In 2005, Eugene Kent of Sioux Falls won a civil lawsuit against United of Omaha, an insurance company with which he once worked on a health insurance policy. But the St. Louis-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has overturned the decision.
and...
Earlier this month, the Court of Appeals overturned Kent's loss of income claim, leaving him with nothing. Among other things, the appeals court noted in its decision that “the South Dakota Supreme Court concluded that Kent had violated 'seven provisions of the Insurance Code,' and that the decision to revoke his license was not 'too harsh a penalty' based on Kent's misrepresentations, fraudulent conduct and general dishonesty.”
EUGENE P. KENT,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
Defendant.
[2006 DSD 7]
United States District Court
District of South Dakota—Southern Division
CIV 02-4214
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
Nancy J. Turbak, Turbak Law Office, P.C., Watertown, SD
Attorney for Plaintiff.
Attorney for Plaintiff.
What does it mean politically? Not a darned thing. But it does confirm that Nancy is one of the top trial lawyers in in this state, as I've heard more than once. Even if her client doesn't get to keep the $27.4 million.
Speaking of Senator Turbak, in addition to her legal duties, she did some pro bono defense work on behalf of our congresswoman in the Argus Leader today:
Critics need to think again, says state Sen. Nancy Turbak, D-Watertown.Read that in David Kranz's Argus Leader column.
"What the radio ads really suggest is that Rep. Herseth Sandlin should be trying to micromanage local flood relief or at least exploiting that disaster for photo ops instead of meeting with scientists and European political leaders to work on the most immediate environmental challenge facing the planet Earth," Turbak said. "That kind of small thinking gets South Dakota nowhere. The cheap shots taken at the congresswoman are disappointing but not too surprising, since they apparently come from folks who love to criticize whatever she does, wherever she goes, and even how she wears her hair."
Comments
Great
Say what did House Speaker Tom Diedrick do with his law degree
Ted Klaudt would be proud. What's he doing with his free time these days? And why's Roger Hunt running around free like Ted?
Sorry, couldn't resist!
It's not easy to get a South Dakota jury to award big money to a Plaintiff. I believe this was the single biggest jury verdict in South Dakota history. But unless the US Supreme Court agrees to hear the case and then overturns the 8th circuit, it's over. It's doubtful that this is the type of case the US Supreme Court will hear.
That's venom?
I thought I was actually being complimentary. I'd hire her.
her a seat in the senate as she did
alot of campaigning to get the young women's vote at Brookings.
I got early acceptance to Creighton because of my more than decent LSAT score.
It was *sniff* only USD that didn't love me.