|
Arcturas posted:Thermopyle, while I'm with woozle on this one, I'd make one clarification. I get the vibe from you that you think many people go through bankruptcy, but still end up in trouble. Instead, they should consult a financial planner to solve their long-term financial problems, which may (but may not) involve paying off all their debt. While that may be true, it's only true for people who use the bankruptcy process as a substitute for addressing the reasons they got into debt. I don't disagree with this.
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 16:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:33 |
|
|
Look Under The Rock posted:Okay, so here's a question. What state?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 16:14
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:I don't disagree with this. An independent credit counseling session AND course in financial management is a required part of Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Her attorney has already provided her with that info. But it's great for you to show such concern for her unasked question. (edit note: this requirement was added in the last few years, meaning your 3rd hand self-selected minority horsefarce may have come from before the change. If so, I apologize and we part as friends) woozle wuzzle fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Sep 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 17:23
|
|
|
Diplomaticus posted:In some jurisdictions, burglary has a dwelling house requirement, and also sometimes a nighttime requirement. Yeah those are old CL requirements that must hang around some places, you can see we had a small discussion about it. It would be really cool to see a chart with what states have retained what parts of CL burglary.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 19:56
|
|
|
Dogen posted:Yeah those are old CL requirements that must hang around some places, you can see we had a small discussion about it. You're almost in luck! 45 Ind.L.Rev. 629
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 20:58
|
|
|
joat mon posted:You're almost in luck! Ooh, I'll squirrel that away to read later. Thanks! When I get excited about reading things like this or attending a "Handling Your First Consumer Law" CLE, it makes me feel almost like I chose the right profession. Almost.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 21:15
|
|
|
Diplomaticus posted:In some jurisdictions, burglary has a dwelling house requirement, and also sometimes a nighttime requirement. In NYS: S 140.05 Trespass. A person is guilty of trespass when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises. Trespass is a violation. S 140.10 Criminal trespass in the third degree. A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the third degree when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building or upon real property (a) which is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders; or (b) where the building is utilized as an elementary or secondary school or a children`s overnight camp as defined in section one thousand three hundred ninety-two of the public health law or a summer day camp as defined in section one thousand three hundred ninety-two of the public health law in violation of conspicuously posted rules or regulations governing entry and use thereof; or (c) located within a city with a population in excess of one million and where the building or real property is utilized as an elementary or secondary school in violation of a personally communicated request to leave the premises from a principal, custodian or other person in charge thereof; or (d) located outside of a city with a population in excess of one million and where the building or real property is utilized as an elementary or secondary school in violation of a personally communicated request to leave the premises from a principal, custodian, school board member or trustee, or other person in charge thereof; or (e) where the building is used as a public housing project in violation of conspicuously posted rules or regulations governing entry and use thereof; or (f) where a building is used as a public housing project in violation of a personally communicated request to leave the premises from a housing police officer or other person in charge thereof; or (g) where the property consists of a right-of-way or yard of a railroad or rapid transit railroad which has been designated and conspicuously posted as a no-trespass railroad zone. Criminal trespass in the third degree is a class B misdemeanor. *Skipping a few* S 140.20 Burglary in the third degree. A person is guilty of burglary in the third degree when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building with intent to commit a crime therein. Burglary in the third degree is a class D felony. http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article140.htm#p140.20
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 23:13
|
|
|
I originally posted this in the apartment thread but now it's moved onto probably involving lawyers so I wanted to ask here. I signed a lease for an apartment. On the walkthrough I didn't notice any roaches and I was never told there were any nor was it mentioned in the lease. When I went to move into the apartment I found dozens of roaches, covering the walls, floors, ceiling, windows, everything. I called the manager and told him I would not accept the apartment in this condition and wanted my money refunded and the contract terminated. He signed a statement to return my deposit and rent and also stated I had no obligation to honor the lease. When I came to get the check the next day he initially refused and wanted to change the arrangement so that he would give me cash instead of a check in exchange for the paper he signed the day before. I insisted on a check and when I threatened to get lawyers involved he did write me a check for the full amount and listed reimbursement for the apartment as the cause on the memo line. I also kept the statement he signed under the agreement that once the check he gave me clears I will return it and the original lease will be torn up. I've made copies of the statement he gave me, and I have witnesses both to the condition of the apartment and his agreeing to cancel the lease as well as photos of the condition of the apartment and the numerous roaches. Instead of simply tearing up the lease do I need to have him write and sign something on the lease stating it is terminated? Is his written statement that I have no obligation to honor the lease enough to prevail if he sues me? I've never had to cancel a lease or contract before and so I'm really unsure what I need to do to protect myself here. He has told me repeatedly that he isn't going to take this any further and that he agrees to terminate the contract but at the same time he has been extremely reluctant to put anything in writing and has only done so when I threatened to contact the Housing Department and a lawyer. I live in Missouri if it matters.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 23:24
|
|
|
Thizzin, you should write up a short document stating that you are terminating the lease through mutual agreement, and that neither party owes the other any further compensation. You don't need to put that it is due to roach infestation, and he probably won't sign it if you do. Identify the apartment and the dates of your original lease. If you want to cover yourself further, list your security deposit paid by personal check no. Xxx on date xx/xx/xx and that it was refunded to you by check no. Xxx on date xx/xx/xx. Put spaces for your signature, his signature, and a witness if you can get a friend to come, and dates for all 3. Print a copy for you and one for him, and keep that and all your other documentation for 1 year more than the statute of limitations for your state. If the guy is reluctant to sign, point out that this will prevent you from suing him for any other damages. It will save him some hassle. Act like you are really doing him a favor since he is not familiar with the process. You are, but it is to your benefit too. bigpolar fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Sep 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 23:46
|
|
|
bigpolar posted:If the guy is reluctant to sign, point out that this will prevent you from suing him for any other damages. It will save him some hassle. Act like you are really doing him a favor since he is not familiar with the process. You are, but it is to your benefit too. OK that was my next question. The guy is very opposed to signing anything and keeps insisting I return the statement he did sign all while insisting the contract is terminated. If he flat out refuses to sign anything would there be any benefit to recording our conversation? He has no issue verbalizing that the contract is terminated and that we have no lease agreement going forward, he just gets agitated whenever I mention signing anything. I think at least some of the problem is communication as English is not his first language and so there has been confusion about what I'm wanting him to sign or why. I realize that recording a conversation without someone else's consent is pretty lovely but Missouri is a one party consent state so I wouldn't be breaking the law I'm just not sure if a conversation recorded on a cell phone is legally binding.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2012 00:45
|
|
|
Hi guys, I have a Kentucky landlord/tenant question. I had a verbal OK from the property manager regarding some of my pets, which is the whole reason I moved into this place to start. Lately that person has been replaced and the new manager was notified of them via a maintenance guy. He's now telling me I have to get them out after 4 and a half months of living here. I feel I have been acting in good faith based on the word of the manager, but can't necessarily prove that the agreement even happened since this other person was fired and I have no way of getting in contact. Even if I could, I'm not sure if that's any kind of binding thing at all. At best I would like to know if I can force them to let me maintain the status quo, but it would also be nice if this would let me argue for release from the lease so I can find a more accommodating landlord.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2012 01:36
|
|
|
thizzin forever posted:OK that was my next question. The guy is very opposed to signing anything and keeps insisting I return the statement he did sign all while insisting the contract is terminated. If he flat out refuses to sign anything would there be any benefit to recording our conversation? He has no issue verbalizing that the contract is terminated and that we have no lease agreement going forward, he just gets agitated whenever I mention signing anything. I think at least some of the problem is communication as English is not his first language and so there has been confusion about what I'm wanting him to sign or why. I realize that recording a conversation without someone else's consent is pretty lovely but Missouri is a one party consent state so I wouldn't be breaking the law I'm just not sure if a conversation recorded on a cell phone is legally binding. IANAL, but I don't think recording him would hurt your case. It might not be admissible, but if you end up sued it might be. Try to show him that the document protects him, acts as a receipt, and emphasize that he gets a copy. Maybe it will work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2012 01:38
|
|
|
euphronius posted:What state? Michigan. If it matters, he moved to Ohio when the divorce was finalized.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2012 02:51
|
|
|
Look Under The Rock posted:So I'm asking here: what legal recourse might she have to keep him from filing for bankruptcy until the card is paid off? And if there's none, what might she be able to do to get rid of the charge if he does declare bankruptcy and it falls to her to pay a bill that she has no way to pay? He can totally file and she can't stop him, but his bankruptcy won't help him much, and his attorney would tell him (although you know those crazy bankruptcy attorneys, just making things up what with their bias and poo poo). Divorce rulings and domestic support obligations survive bankruptcy. So let's say he files bankruptcy. That discharges his debt owed directly to the credit card company. They can't call him or sue him. Instead they'll call and sue your mom. She then turns around to the divorce judge and says "woah, this rear end in a top hat filed bankruptcy and didn't pay according to your order". The divorce judge then threatens pops with civil contempt if he doesn't begin a payment plan, and may even compensate your mother for the hit to her credit in the meantime. The divorce decree survives bankruptcy. So while he might prevent the companies from coming after him for his share of the debt, he can't prevent the judge in divorce from enforcing his original order. I'm not saying there's nothing to worry about, because it could still cause her some disruption. But in the end, the divorce decree survives everything and remains enforcable. So don't sweat it too much. The immediate problems is just her current financial stability. Is the home/rent too expensive? Something has to give. She may want to look into filing a bankruptcy of her own, depending on her debt load. (I know, always the salesman) Really, it's possible bankruptcy might be a good option for her. All she's gotta do about your dad's bankruptcy is be ready to call a family lawyer the moment he files. That way when she gets the notice it's not a shock or a scramble, she'll just call up her family lawyer and get the ball rolling on enforcing the decree.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2012 03:44
|
|
|
the yeti posted:Hi guys, I have a Kentucky landlord/tenant question. Does your lease specifically forbid pets? If so, you're probably screwed, as that trumps whatever verbal agreement you had. If not, then you should be able to keep your pets, as they can't arbitrarily impose terms not in the lease.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2012 06:22
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:The immediate problems is just her current financial stability. Is the home/rent too expensive? Something has to give. She may want to look into filing a bankruptcy of her own, depending on her debt load. (I know, always the salesman) Really, it's possible bankruptcy might be a good option for her. All she's gotta do about your dad's bankruptcy is be ready to call a family lawyer the moment he files. That way when she gets the notice it's not a shock or a scramble, she'll just call up her family lawyer and get the ball rolling on enforcing the decree. My parents used to run a nonprofit organization and one of the donors took it upon himself to make their mortgage payment. My mom got the house in the divorce and the donor decided he wanted to continue to make her mortgage payment for her. I'm pretty sure she's not in debt any further than that, she's just struggling because my dad is terrible at paying child support and the only work she has time for (because she's raising small children and trying to keep her own household under control) is daycare for a single small toddler, and cleaning the toddler's parents' house. She's working herself to death but is having constant money issues simply because she does not have time to get an education that would allow her to pursue the kind of career that she could support her family on. Thank you so much for your response, it's super helpful and I'll call her today and let her know.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2012 14:24
|
|
|
This is an "is it worth it" question. Basically my lease ended at the end of July, I gave notice at the end of May and moved in June. I mailed the check for July and with it included my forwarding address. The jurisdiction is Texas, specifically Travis County. My landlord says she sent my security deposit, but its now September 18th and I've received nothing. After 30 days I'm able to sue for 3x the amount + $100 and court costs. But if you check the website for the justice courts for travis county, its just a mishmash of information that doesn't really help. Since I live in Colorado now, can I mail in the form and fee to file suit? Also if you read this, http://www.co.travis.tx.us/justices_of_peace/jp3/collecting_judgments.asp It sounds like this is basically something to do to gently caress up someones credit. What I want is my money. From what I understand I'd end up paying a hundred or so for the filing costs, then have to fly down there on my own money and that just gets me a judgement. No actual money. Then I'd have to take that to the county to get a judgement lien, then get a writ of judgement whereupon its up to me to determine if they have non-exempt property which excludes basically all property, vehicles, and anything that goes in a property. Which will cost me two hundred. And I'd probably have to fly out to Texas again. Am I basically just hosed on this? It looks like I'm better off just threatening to sue and hoping she doesn't know the difference. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2012 20:11
|
|
|
Merou posted:This is an "is it worth it" question. Writing a letter to your ex-landlord threatening to sue is free and takes 5 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2012 20:18
|
|
|
I've actually found form letters, so technically it would take less than 5 minutes. Which is what I've decided to do if I've still received nothing by the end of this month. Its just more annoying than anything really. Unfortunately its $675 worth of annoying.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2012 20:26
|
|
|
Be aware that treble damages require bad faith which can be negated by "Oh it was in the mail!" (rebuttable presumption). Really the best thing you can do if you are pretty sure they are just dumb and screwed up somehow is to write a demand letter that will get their rear end in gear.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2012 21:22
|
|
|
Last week my roommates and I went away on vacation while our property management did an 'occupied renovation' on our townhouse. When we came back from vacation my roommates discovered many items stolen, mostly shoes and clothing, but also some electronics. We filed a police report, notified the property management, as well as their corporate management. I personally spoke with the contractor foreman who told me that tile is subcontracted and they are left alone in our unit for up to two days to complete the work - mostly unsupervised. After speaking with my property's corporate management, the vibe I'm getting is that they aren't going to do anything for us as things stand, even though they were responsible for securing my property during the renovation. If the police investigation doesn't turn anything up are there any legal avenues I can take to at least recover something from my property management or the contractors? It seems silly that I would have to just grin and bear it in this situation when all three of us were out of state and there was no forced entry into the unit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 00:47
|
|
|
corded ware culture posted:Last week my roommates and I went away on vacation while our property management did an 'occupied renovation' on our townhouse... Did you have an option to not consent to the renovation? When and what type of consent was required? What kind of paperwork were you given about the renovation? Did the management company promise to secure all your personal effects, or were they mute on the subject? Does your lease include any sort of phrase like "workmen will not be left unsupervised in your apartment?" If you have the wrong answers to these questions, what this will probably come down to in court is that you claim the management is responsible, and they claim that you consented to the renovations and chose not to be present, so you are responsible for your property. The ruling will depend on how your judge feels that day. In Louisiana you would get laughed at. Did you not have renters insurance? Why not make a claim through them and try to get the property manager to settle for paying your deductible?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 01:02
|
|
|
corded ware culture posted:Last week my roommates and I went away on vacation while our property management did an 'occupied renovation' on our townhouse. When we came back from vacation my roommates discovered many items stolen, mostly shoes and clothing, but also some electronics. We filed a police report, notified the property management, as well as their corporate management. I personally spoke with the contractor foreman who told me that tile is subcontracted and they are left alone in our unit for up to two days to complete the work - mostly unsupervised. Was there notice of the rennovation\entry of your unit? If so what did it say? What does your lease say about entering the property? Did the police report definitively state no forced entry found, or did they softball it? Were there pictures taken before or after? The only hole I see is linking the alleged theft to the actions of the landlord. What if they claim that whatever was stolen was done after the rennovation work was completed? Can you dispute that? What state are you in? Generally I think your action would be against the landlord, but the issue is how can you tie the theft to the rennovation work, and not something that happened before or after.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 21:40
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:If it came down to it, you can sue them for damages. That part is a slam dunk win, because regardless of fees or whatever they damaged the cars. Update: I received a check in the mail for the damages to my car, in the amount that they quoted in an email, so that's good I reviewed some paperwork, and it looks like I signed something saying that my employer would only pay for a second vehicle if I was the owner or if it belonged to my spouse; girlfriends don't count. I am probably on the hook here, right? Should I try arguing more and hope for a better deal on the basis that the moving company should have checked ownership and shouldn't have told me that ownership was irrelevant, contrary to the agreement I had with my employer? They're supposed to deliver the shipping invoice sometime this week, so I have some time to think about it
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 23:09
|
|
|
Not seeking actual legal advice: for entertainment purposes only. How does US law work in regards to corporate policies that disproportionately affect one demographic class of people over others? For example, if a company started enforcing a "no facial tattoos" policy and over the next few years 80% of the people fired under the policy were Asian women who decided that Mike Tyson tattoos were cool. More closely to a realistic example, if a company had a strict attendance policy that was perfectly and consistently applied, is it a problem if one racial group is affected more than others? I don't particularly need detailed specifics, because as I said earlier, this is just me being curious.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 23:56
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:How does US law work in regards to corporate policies that disproportionately affect one demographic class of people over others? For example, if a company started enforcing a "no facial tattoos" policy and over the next few years 80% of the people fired under the policy were Asian women who decided that Mike Tyson tattoos were cool. You can bring an employment discrimination claim for a disparate impact on a Title VII class, regardless of whether the employer meant to discriminate or not. However, the employer could defend with a showing that the allegedly discriminatory practice is necessary to the business, or that there was no less discriminatory alternative. For example, in Griggs SCOTUS held that a high school diploma/IQ test requirement for a power plant job was arbitrary and unnecessary, and thus discriminatory against black employees. But in Dothard, they held that height/weight requirements for prison guards were okay, even if they had the effect of screening out more female than male applicants.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 00:12
|
|
|
ed: beaten ^
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 00:16
|
|
|
I have a question about liability release waivers for sporting activities like rock climbing/caving/volleyball. I generally sign these without much thought because you have to, and also because I've heard that they don't actually work in most jurisdictions and an operator would still be liable for damages if they were negligent. Is this true? If it is, do they have some value, such as being there in case they need to demonstrate in court that the person understood the risks, or is it more of a cargo cult thing at the moment? I happen to be in Canada (BC specifically) but I'd be curious to hear about other jurisdictions as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 18:29
|
|
|
DuckConference posted:I have a question about liability release waivers for sporting activities like rock climbing/caving/volleyball. I generally sign these without much thought because you have to, and also because I've heard that they don't actually work in most jurisdictions and an operator would still be liable for damages if they were negligent. Is this true? In america you cannot generally disclaim negligence. Those types of releases are better served for proving that the person was put on notice of the dangerous activity, which can be used as a defense to intentional torts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 18:50
|
|
|
DuckConference posted:I have a question about liability release waivers for sporting activities like rock climbing/caving/volleyball. I generally sign these without much thought because you have to, and also because I've heard that they don't actually work in most jurisdictions and an operator would still be liable for damages if they were negligent. Is this true? They're fairly short reasons, so give them a peek. Take from them what you will! And you can do your own case research at CanLII if you're curious about other case law that might apply to your question.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 03:41
|
|
|
bombhand posted:I'm not a BC lawyer but I work for one. I do preliminary case research sometimes! And here is a recent BC Provincial Court case I came across a while ago that involves a waiver like you describe: http://canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2011/2011bcsc193/2011bcsc193.html Thanks for the link, it turns out I'm quite wrong. Both in that case and the Karroll v. Silver Star Mountain Resorts Ltd. case the reference, there is some pretty clear (at least in my opinion) negligence on the part of the operator but apparently the waiver still prevents any claims against the operator.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 04:19
|
|
|
Hey folks, I hope you can help prepare my family for litigation/give us peace of mind. My parents live in Williamson County, Texas and have a German Shepard. A few months ago, my parents' dog, Emma, got out of the fence but stayed in our front yard. A woman was walking her small dog in front of our house and Emma bit her small dog and scratched the woman when the woman picked her dog up. Emma was quarantined for 15 days and then released back into my parents' care. The woman has expressed to my mother her desire to sue my family for the expenses related to the vet bill for the dog and hospital bill for herself, emotional distress, the works. My mom spoke with our insurance, and as it turns out, because the incident happened on our property, the woman and her dog's medical expenses are covered by the property insurance. My mom worked with our insurance to send her a document saying that she accepts to have the expenses paid by the insurance in exchange for not suing our family. This was sent to her months ago and she still hasn't signed it. We have the same vet, and the vet told my mom that the woman's dog's wounds were superficial. As the woman herself was not bitten, we assume that her wounds are also superficial. How much danger are we in of losing tons of money in the threatened lawsuit? If the woman signs the documents from the insurance company, is that legally binding? How long can she wait before suing over this incident? My mom tells me she's not slept soundly in months because she's terrified that someone will come out of the blue to euthanize her dog, so I hope the answer is that we're not it too much danger!
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 22:20
|
|
|
Xibanya posted:
"Tons" of money my rear end. Vet bills, maybe. And since they were superficial, they can't be more than the vet charged for them. There's not a lot of emotional distress here, either. Further, your property insurance is indemnifying you (they pay-- not you). quote:My mom tells me she's not slept soundly in months because she's terrified that someone will come out of the blue to euthanize her dog, so I hope the answer is that we're not it too much danger! No, they're not going to come and euthanize the dog. If it's the first offense, you're fine. However, if this dog is a known danger, you're in more trouble. When a lawyer looks at a dog bite claim, they're looking for hospitalization, history and most of all, surgery.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 22:34
|
|
|
Xibanya posted:My mom tells me she's not slept soundly in months because she's terrified that someone will come out of the blue to euthanize her dog, so I hope the answer is that we're not it too much danger!
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 01:00
|
|
|
Why doesn't every alleged criminal who successful argues a motion to suppress for 4A violations then turn around and file a 1983 action for money against the offending officer? I'm sure there is an obvious answer (res judica?), but I'm bad at research and haven't see it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 03:47
|
|
|
Just because a search is illegal under the fourth amendment doesn't mean you can get money damages. The standard for 1983 damages is higher than simple violations of the law, particularly if you're suing the officer in their individual, and not official, capacity. At least for breaching qualified immunity, you need a violation of clearly established law/precedent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 04:36
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:"Tons" of money my rear end. Vet bills, maybe. And since they were superficial, they can't be more than the vet charged for them. There's not a lot of emotional distress here, either. Further, your property insurance is indemnifying you (they pay-- not you). Thanks, that will give us some peace of mind! She's just a year and a half old, so fortunately it's her first offense. Aww, our little criminal!
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 04:56
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:Just because a search is illegal under the fourth amendment doesn't mean you can get money damages. The standard for 1983 damages is higher than simple violations of the law, particularly if you're suing the officer in their individual, and not official, capacity. At least for breaching qualified immunity, you need a violation of clearly established law/precedent. Is the clearly established prong, like, a super-factual inquiry? Because if it isn't, I don't see how that would be as big of a hurdle to cross -- assuming, of course, you aren't talking about some cutting edge theory. For example. A car stop is a car stop is a car stop until you start talking about the very exact facts of any given situation. When there is a 4A violation in a car stop scenario, I don't see why the clearly established rules governing 4A car stops wouldn't just automatically satisfy that portion of qualified immunity. Am I misunderstanding the concept of the clearly established inquiry?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 05:15
|
|
|
Clearly established violation of constitutional right is a lot higher hurdle than a simple violation of a constitutional right. There are technical details, but what it boils down to is that the judge (plus probably two appeals judges, since you bet your rear end that'll go up on an interlocutory appeal) has to think that the cop's actions were shocking and egregious, and were remarkably factually similar to an already decided case. It's a fact-intensive inquiry, and judges are very uncomfortable breaching qualified immunity. For instance, in Saucier v. Katz, a pair of cops who picked up a protester who was planting a banner, carried him to their van and threw him in - even though they used excessive force in arresting him - were granted qualified immunity. Though there was a constitutional violation, the officers reasonably, but mistakenly, believed their conduct was justified, so were entitled to immunity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 06:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:33 |
|
|
Any recommendations for a Richmond VA area traffic attorney for a reckless driving (over 80) ticket?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2012 14:33
|
|
