|
Yea, the main concern is whether it's worth $50k+ to appeal it, assuming you have a lawyer Or you're a mentally deranged pro se plaintiff in which case you appeal everything
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 12:32 |
|
|
As a lawyer one of the earliest lessons I learned from a grizzled veteran litigator. Losing in the trial court might hurt your feelings, but it's excellent for business.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
Is it legal in TX to charge a higher deposit(higher then 1 months rent) sue to bad credit?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
Dear lawyers, my SO is a law student and this semester he's been drinking heavier than usual. He said it was because of something called "conflict of laws". What is this "conflict of laws"? It it like some kind of appeal, or a law exam format? Could you explain it to me in detail?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
I believe it's where you tell opposing counsel you are opposed to their motion but then don't file a response to it
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
Choice of law is generally very straight forward, however I can see how a loving law school professor could load up a completely asinine hypo no one would ever encounter in practice. Typically ask yourself three things, 1) where are the parties, 2) where was the injurious causing event, and 3) which state has a superior interest in having the matter determined by their laws. This is more or less what it is in my state I can't imagine it's that different in others. Small asterisk: if it's a contract dispute, check the language of the contract, most contracts will have a choice of law provision. Except in law school hypos, because that would make for a one sentence essay in the final.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
Conflicts is basically when a case could be heard in one of several jurisdictions. One party asks the court in one place to hear the case, and the other might say gently caress you we need to have it heard in this other place before a different court. A party might want a thing heard in a different place because the law is better for their case there, but usually you have to show some kind of connection to the place where the court is if you want it heard there. Except in Texas and England. Those courts will claim jurisdiction over loving anything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Dear lawyers, my SO is a law student and this semester he's been drinking heavier than usual. He said it was because of something called "conflict of laws". What is this "conflict of laws"? It it like some kind of appeal, or a law exam format? Could you explain it to me in detail? Source your quotes bitch
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 04:07
|
|
|
lord1234 posted:Is it legal in TX to charge a higher deposit(higher then 1 months rent) sue to bad credit? There's no law that I'm aware of governing deposits in Texas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 05:07
|
|
|
LeschNyhan posted:Conflicts is basically when a case could be heard in one of several jurisdictions. One party asks the court in one place to hear the case, and the other might say gently caress you we need to have it heard in this other place before a different court. A party might want a thing heard in a different place because the law is better for their case there, but usually you have to show some kind of connection to the place where the court is if you want it heard there. That's venue/forum non. Don't make me spell the last word.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
LeschNyhan posted:Conflicts is basically when a case could be heard in one of several jurisdictions. One party asks the court in one place to hear the case, and the other might say gently caress you we need to have it heard in this other place before a different court. A party might want a thing heard in a different place because the law is better for their case there, but usually you have to show some kind of connection to the place where the court is if you want it heard there. This gets really fun, by the way, in the EU/EEA area. Unlike in the US, there's no common legal system. There's regulation (Regulation on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations 593/2008 is most relevant) and many laws are somewhat harmonized through various mechanisms and treaties, but problems of ordre public still pop up among other massive assaches. Imagine you live in Switzerland, and you've bought a condominium in Spain (not unusual). However, the broker who made the sale has offices in Vienna, and the owner of the condo is a french company and the contract stipulates that any conflict should be tried in France, but is formulated in a way that violates spanish or swiss or even EU law. Then you lie down and weep manly tears. In actual real life though, you'll almost never be involved in a case where this matters, and if you are you're probably with a firm who has fifteen experts on the issue. Or an AI lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 10:22
|
|
|
Lol if you think the US has a "common legal system." Sure there is an overarching system of federal laws and procedure. But every state has its own laws!
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 14:01
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Lol if you think the US has a "common legal system." Common law legal system, of the dreaded English. The system and the legal tradition has strong commonalities across all states. Europe... doesn't have this. Some follow a germanic approach of strong positivism, some follow the retarded swedes and some kind of nordic model, some are common law though altered, some are napoleonic, Italy is... well, Italy, etc. etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 14:15
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Common law legal system, of the dreaded English. The system and the legal tradition has strong commonalities across all states.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Dear lawyers, my SO is a law student and this semester he's been drinking heavier than usual. He said it was because of something called "conflict of laws". What is this "conflict of laws"? It it like some kind of appeal, or a law exam format? Could you explain it to me in detail? Conflict of Laws is Statutory Construction's poor country cousin, though they operate the same way. Think of CL as the International Cycling Union and SC as the International Olympic Committee and it'll make more sense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Common law legal system, of the dreaded English. The system and the legal tradition has strong commonalities across all states. As a swedish non-lawyer, what's retarded about our laws?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
lord1234 posted:Is it legal in TX to charge a higher deposit(higher then 1 months rent) sue to bad credit? Texas is not quite as comically anti-tenant as some southern states, but it's still really bad. As HotDogDay said there is no legal limit on the amount of the deposit, and from a federal discrimination perspective 'person with lovely credit' is not a protected class so what they are doing is legal there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
Unload My Head posted:Texas is not quite as comically anti-tenant as some southern states, but it's still really bad. As HotDogDay said there is no legal limit on the amount of the deposit, and from a federal discrimination perspective 'person with lovely credit' is not a protected class so what they are doing is legal there. Is Arkansas still the worst? I remember seeing a report on the state of Arkansas renting laws. They seem downright medieval!
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Common law legal system, of the dreaded English. The system and the legal tradition has strong commonalities across all states. You didn't say "common law system" but we can run with that. I won't argue that there aren't goofy rear end differences between European systems that go back thousands of years and no doubt complicate choice/conflict of laws in Europe. But the US has plenty of these issues. 49 states do indeed apply some form of "common law" system, with separate law/equity remedies and a tradition of stare decisis. However, one dumb state uses the French civil law tradition, as nm says. But even though these 49 states use a common legal tradition, they all have different codes and their own jurisprudential interpretation of those codes and the common law! So you can't be sure that Arizona and Massachusetts interpret contracts in the same way, and any contract with ties in either state is subject to a conflict of laws. So while the system might have commonalities across all states, the procedures and substance of the law may not. Which is why lawyers have to be licensed in each individual state in order to practice there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
Lowness 72 posted:Is Arkansas still the worst? I remember seeing a report on the state of Arkansas renting laws. They seem downright medieval! Not a lawyer, not in Arkansas, but isn't it the only state that doesn't have an implied warranty of habitability for residential leases?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
JUST MAKING CHILI posted:doesn't have an implied warranty of habitability for residential leases?  30 seconds of googling posted:Arkansas is also the only state that criminalizes failure to pay rent. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
It's larceny! Theft from your landlord is a vicious offense. A landlord's failure to make repairs or return a deposit is totally different.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:You didn't say "common law system" but we can run with that. Yeah, I was speaking pretty generally, which I usually try to do when I'm not an expert on some specific topic. This is pretty interesting, I would have expected more homogenization between states to be honest. So precedent between state superior courts isn't really a thing, then? I assume SCOTUS does comparative analysis of verdicts in some cases, or is that only in federal circuit decisions? How do you handle conflict with native/tribal laws, as a for instance? Or would that automatically be a federal issue? This does mske sense with the whole «licence for every state» thing though. nm posted:I'm so glad you replied to phil on this, who practices in the exception. I think you're right. Syncopated posted:As a swedish non-lawyer, what's retarded about our laws? Oh not the laws, just the people :iamafag: . I like making fun of swedes, but then again who doesn't. Please feel free to explain to these folks why the press is the third estate and not the fourth. It's something I love about sweden.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Yeah, I was speaking pretty generally, which I usually try to do when I'm not an expert on some specific topic. I don't mean to imply that the states are all wildly divergent. On many issues they are very similar if not identical, and many states have codified "model laws" promulgated for that purpose to ensure consistency in interstate commerce and other issues. The decisions of one state's highest court are not binding on the courts of another state, no. They can be cited as persuasive authority but they are not precedent otherwise. The US Supreme Court typically only gets involved in cases that involve federal law or constitutional issues. Usually these are appeals from Federal court decisions, not state courts. If a case comes to the SCOTUS from a state supreme court, it is usually because there is a serious federal interest at issue that other state supreme courts have ruled on inconsistently. Look at Rule 10: https://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2013RulesoftheCourt.pdf The Supreme Court is not going to tell a state how to interpret its own laws (unless they conflict with Federal laws). Criminal cases from state courts tend to get to the SCOTUS more often than civil cases, because by their nature criminal matters almost always concern issues of the US Constitution. I don't really know anything about tribal law but from what I understand it is entirely its own animal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:The decisions of one state's highest court are not binding on the courts of another state, no. They can be cited as persuasive authority but they are not precedent otherwise. Are the state's highest courts generally composed of decent judges or do some of the poorer states have lovely judges even that high up? Where I live, the higher courts of some provinces are bad enough that citing their decisions as precedent can backfire spectacularly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:Are the state's highest courts generally composed of decent judges or do some of the poorer states have lovely judges even that high up? There are states that elect their supreme court justices. At least one reelected a guy who got kicked out for ignoring a federal court.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:I don't mean to imply that the states are all wildly divergent. On many issues they are very similar if not identical, and many states have codified "model laws" promulgated for that purpose to ensure consistency in interstate commerce and other issues. Ah right, "compelling reasons". I guess some things are the same everywhere. I find it very interesting that high/superior court can be a persuasive auhority between states if states differ on the substance of law and civil or criminal procedure. Anyway, thanks for this, it's not really related to conflict of laws but it's nonetheless illuminating. Anyway, to put a point on it I'll still claim that the overall general difference between the legal systems of two random countries in Europe is more significant than the same general difference between two states in the US (given the common language, legal tradition, overarching federal system and similar court/tribunal structure not to mention constitution), but on some further reflection I'm going to go ahead and recant on implying private international law is somehow a worse issue in Europe than in the US, on the simple fact that I don't know just how big of a pain in the rear end it can be in the US. I do wonder though if it's a much more common issue in the US than Europe? My gut feeling is that it is. Does this stuff keep you busy? Nice piece of fish fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Apr 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Ah right, "compelling reasons". I guess some things are the same everywhere. I would wager you're correct that US states are much more mutually intelligible than European systems. When I say "persuasive authority" I mean it in the sense that where there is no binding precedent in the subject state, you can certainly point a judge to other states in an effort to persuade them to agree with your position. An example off the top of my head that I worked---the film industry was beginning to get very hot in Louisiana a few years ago, but the law had not developed on many issues such as whether an actor is an employee of his own loan-our corporation or the production company for the film he is working on. California, on the other hand, obviously has a very well-developed body of law on these subjects, so when arguing to a Louisiana court I can cite California cases and say, "This is how it's done in other states and the reasoning is sound. Louisiana should do it the same way." "Conflict of laws" is not a big deal in most cases. Most sophisticated business deals have forum selection and choice of law clauses anyway. But it does arise. Here is how Louisiana handles it: http://www.legis.la.gov/legis/Law.aspx?d=110535 quote:Except as otherwise provided in this Book, an issue in a case having contacts with other states is governed by the law of the state whose policies would be most seriously impaired if its law were not applied to that issue. You can see how this might get fact-intensive and expensive to litigate!
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:Are the state's highest courts generally composed of decent judges or do some of the poorer states have lovely judges even that high up? As mentioned they are often elected, and usually for 10+ year terms, so you get judges that reflect their constituencies. Can you guess which one of these Louisiana Supreme Court justices represents the New Orleans district??*  *If you want a more current picture swap out the white lady for a grey haired white man. Phil Moscowitz fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Apr 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:Are the state's highest courts generally composed of decent judges or do some of the poorer states have lovely judges even that high up? It's more a reflection of political and social views than wealth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
xxEightxx posted:It's more a reflection of political and social views than wealth. Yeah most judges are elected and have to run for office so they all want to be there and do a good job. As far as I know most judges even in poor areas are paid well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 00:21
|
|
xxEightxx posted:Choice of law is generally very straight forward, however I can see how a loving law school professor could load up a completely asinine hypo no one would ever encounter in practice. Let's keep this burning train rolling. What do you mean by "superior interest"? And where is that decided?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:"Conflict of laws" is not a big deal in most cases. Most sophisticated business deals have forum selection and choice of law clauses anyway. But it does arise. Here is how Louisiana handles it: Thanks, makes sense and is to a lesser degree also sometimes done in Europe if statutory law is lacking in coverage or case law on an issue, though of course that opens up other cans of worms. No competent lawyer would ever draw up a contract between international parties without a choice of law clause, I'm fairly sure, but interesting issues still typically arise with oral contracts. That's probably quite the same thing in the US, though (Texaco v. Pennzoil is pretty famous?). It is both fact-intensive and probably very expensive, but I kind of love this wording: quote:"Except as otherwise provided in this Book" Those motherfuckers. I hate this, it's everywhere in so many laws. I get why, obviously, but it's very annoying. It's probably not as big a deal in conflict of laws type issues, but in some ancient more fragmentary laws it can be such a pain - for instance laws dating back to the 16th or 17th century. Discendo Vox posted:Let's keep this burning train rolling. What do you mean by "superior interest"? And where is that decided? I'm also interested in this actually.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 08:04
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Let's keep this burning train rolling. What do you mean by "superior interest"? And where is that decided? Thats the part of the element analysis where you argue. Two truckers, in Oklahoma trucks from Oklahoma Companies, passing through Texas have an accident in Texas. One of the drivers technically lives on the Texas side of the border. Part of the reason for the accident was a faulty airbrake system manufactured by an Oklahoma company, and installed in Oklahoma. Texas guy sues in Oklahoma because Texas Personal Injury laws are hosed. Oklahoma guy moves to transfer the case to Texas In a case where both Jurisdiction, and venue are proper in Texas, and Oklahoma, then its down to "Where does it make the most sense to have the lawsuit."
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Thats the part of the element analysis where you argue. What happens when a man living In Florida is unknowingly taped having sex in Florida and the tape is published online by a media company in NY.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
exploded mummy posted:What happens when a man living In Florida is unknowingly taped having sex in Florida and the tape is published online by a media company in NY. Although the media company is based in New York, they work around the world including extensively in Florida. Florida is likely the most proper venue for suit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
exploded mummy posted:What happens when a man living In Florida is unknowingly taped having sex in Florida and the tape is published online by a media company in NY. They get the LEG DROP FROM THE TOP RUNG BAUH GAWD!!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
smash 'em, hulkster!
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
I mean, I really don't like Peter Theil or his silent funding of a case based mostly on a 5+ year old grudge. However Gawker was completely and utterly in the wrong in every single way they handled things and it's good that Hogan got their money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 12:32 |
|
|
quote:
Does this mean his lawyers think he screwed up so badly that this is going to end up in front of a prosecutor, is it playing a long shot and hoping it works, terrible lawyer, normal, or some combination of some of those options?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 16:04
|
|