Where Can I Find the Progression of Litigation?

The option of using PACER is really what the OP is probably looking for, based on the title of the question. However that costs money, and in a world where so much information is given for free, he might have been hoping for something that doesn't cost money.So the third option is to physically go to the court yourself (which was also mentioned in BlueDogRanch's answer). You can ask the court clerks for the "action number" or for more information about the case. They will have their own computers from which you can find out when the next court hearing is. By going to the court hearing, you will usually learn quite a lot that you won't get in the news articles coming up in Google searches. If media is there, you will be able to talk to them and they'll almost always offer your business card, especially if you ask for it. You can try to follow up with them. I personally like to talk to the lawyers on each side of the case, and there is plenty of chance for that when the court goes into recess. Some lawyers will not want to talk to you, but many of them will at least chat a bit, and almost all of them will at least be respectful. I often get the business card of the lawyers involved in the case, and they are more than happy to give this away (perhaps because spreading their card around can help their firm to get clients). If you build a good rapport with the lawyers (I suppose you can also do this with the families) you may have access to a lot of information that you otherwise would not be able to get.So I am sorry that access to this information is not made easy. I believe it can be, and should be, but the legal world has made their choice that the only way to find out certain things is to go to the court room yourself, or to ask someone else to do it for you, or to pay some money. I hope this helps!

• Related Questions

I) OP's questions about the variational principle (e.g. the derivation to and from Newton's laws) are good and interesting questions, but most have been asks before, see e.g. this and this Phys.SE posts and links therein. Lagrangians not of the form Kinetic Energy minus Potential Energy are discussed in this Phys.

SE post. The question of whether (or not) a set of equations of motion has an action principle is a duplicate of this Phys.SE post and links therein. Another possible helpful Phys.SE post concerning calculus of variation is this one.II) The only new ingredient in OP's question seems to be the finite-difference method. Gelfand's use of the finite-difference method seems mostly to be an alternative way to gain insight into the Euler-Lagrange formula for the functional derivative via discretization. It doesn't add anything new to the continuum theory. For instance, let us for simplicity consider point mechanics (as opposed to field theory). A continuum formulation for point mechanics here refers to a continuous time variable $t$ (as opposed to a discrete time variable). Let there be given a continuum Lagrangian $L(q,v,t)$ that depends on three arguments: position $q$, velocity $v$ and time $t$. Let $fracpartial Lpartial q$ and $fracpartial Lpartial v$ denote the derivative wrt. the first and second argument, respectively, and so forth.Let us approximate the continuum action functional $$tag1 Sq:int_0^T !! dtL(q(t),dotq(t),t)$$ via the following discretized expression$$tag2 S(q_0, ldots q_N):Delta tsum_n0^N-1 L(q_n,v_n,t_n), $$where$$tag3 Delta t: fracTN, qquad t_n : n Delta t, qquad q_n:q(t_n),qquad v_n:fracq_n1-q_nDelta t.$$In eq. (3) we have chosen the forward difference for $v_n$. Obviously other choices are possible. Then$$frac1Delta tfracpartial S(q_0, ldots q_N)partial q_n $$ $$tag4 fracpartial L(q_n,v_n,t_n)partial q -frac1Delta tleftfracpartial L(q_n,v_n,t_n)partial v-fracpartial L(q_n-1,v_n-1,t_n-1)partial v right, $$where $nin1,2, ldots,N-2, N-1$. Eq. (4) is a discretized version of the Euler-Lagrange formula $$tag5 fracdelta Sqdelta q (t)fracpartial L(q(t),dotq(t),t)partial q(t) - fracddt fracpartial L(q(t),dotq(t),t)partial dotq(t) $$for the functional derivative$^1$. The functional derivative (5) satisfies by definition the following infinitesimal variation formula$$tag6 delta Sq :Sqdelta q- Sq int_0^T !! dtfracdelta Sqdelta q (t)delta q(t). $$--$^1$ The existence of functional derivative depends on the appropriately imposed boundary conditions, which we have not discussed. In plain English: We need to integrate by part at some point

------

How to portray senior levels of experience in relatively young technologies?

But is your focus on Java, is my first question? There's a bajillion Java devs out there running around. Enough for people to believe they're going to find somebody in the piles of resumes on their desks that has Java experience going back to its origin and web experience back to its origin.And they will do silly things like cull resumes with single-property filtering schemes like StanfordOrStanfordEquivalent true or "asked for a coffee when I offered one"But it sounds like you're getting past that and into the interviews you need to be in. Assuming you don't have a giant purple mohawk (That would actually be bonus points in my book), or you're not wearing a silly hat with a propeller on it (major bonus points) and maybe it's not overemphasis on getting those Java $s, it sounds like you're face-planting on something at the interviews so I'll ask the following:edit: good point. I'll number these.Additional, following comments: Well, two things. One, it wasn't really clear from your question that you're mostly getting stopped at the resume at first which is an odd detail to miss. You might be having trouble on the communication front on the what-the-other-party-needs-to-know front, which isn't uncommon at all among tech folks including myself occasionally.The other thing that strikes me in your replies is that you don't seem to have any opinion on what you're great at or natural inclination to be working with a given technology suite at this time. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great for people to branch out and build expertise in multiple fields. I also think there are plenty of generalists out there who enjoy it all, but Java, PHP, and JS are like three different planets. Most of the guys in JS chat would rather get root canals than get stuck writing Java for a week and I don't doubt there's a lot of mutual sentiment from the other direction.I wonder if maybe you've got an answer for every question but maybe that some of those answers might be a touch dusty owing to being spread a bit thin or not having the kind of interest in at least one of them that would have you geeking out a bit on the latest developments in your free time.

But I'm really just speculating with what I've got and mean no offense. I could easily be wrong on both counts.Another possibility to consider is that you're picking bad targets. Are you just going for larger household-name companies. Sometimes it's hard to get to somebody in those scenarios that actually knows enough to properly evaluate you before finding some silly reason to slam the gate shut. I would try thinking about the kinds of places you apply and ask yourself if maybe you should try new environments where you're not as likely to get overlooked over trivial details you don't control. And what's really motivating you ultimately in terms of interesting work and leadership roles? If it's strictly more practical concerns, rather than the sorts of "technology/leading people in technology is dreamy" stuff they'd love to hear everybody gush about whether they feel the same way themselves, it may be a little more obvious than you realize.

On the honesty thing, it can only be bad if you don't realize you're giving the wrong answers with confidence. Check your answers when you get home from those interviews. Make sure it's more recent stuff you're checking against.