|
This column suggests that according to Texas law you can prune your neighbour's tree up to the property line, as long as it doesn't cause damage to the part of the tree on the neighbour's side of the fence.
|
#
¿
May 1, 2011 06:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 23:37 |
|
|
In theory, you can't be fired for taking legitimate medical leave even in an at-will state. In practice, proving why you were actually fired is easier said than done.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2011 23:59
|
|
|
uG posted:So why don't they just turn the drat light red a second earlier and have reds in both directions for an extra second? In this situation there is literally no difference between a red and yellow light besides their color spectrum and position on the light itself. I can't count the number of times i've almost been creamed because I had to stop hard at a yellow to avoid such non sense tickets. There is a difference: on yellow you can leave the intersection but shouldn't enter it if you can safely stop, on red you shouldn't be in the intersection at all. This is the legal thread not the driver's ed thread, but to avoid the situation you describe you should be slowing down a little before lights to give yourself time to stop if they change, and then speeding up again once you're close enough to the intersection that you're committed to going through.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2011 03:24
|
|
|
entris posted:I think your parents have the following options: I can think of a third option: get the value of the land re-assessed and make a case that it's below the magic number of $54,000. I don't know the process for appealing a property value assessment in Alaska, but I'm sure there is one.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2011 08:46
|
|
|
Pinkied_Brain posted:So it's too late for me to do this now, since I already got a live court date, right? This will answer your questions. It looks like if you haven't actually appeared in court yet then it's not too late.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2011 06:58
|
|
|
goku chewbacca posted:Or get him to agree to pay the difference between your, say, 12 month average and the new surprise amount since he moved in. If he refuses, shut off the circuit breaker. She said in her first post that the neighbour has already agreed to pay the difference. She just doesn't really want to have to rely on that as a long-term solution.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2012 05:40
|
|
|
paco650 posted:So, all the sarcasm and ironic "haha @ u for seeking legal advice in a legal advice thread" aside, what's the best way to address this? Should I email the company? Just destroy/lose the card (the credit expires on the first of July)? Go ahead and spend all the money anyway because Bank Error In Your Favor, Collect $500? Don't spend the money. If you knew that you were taking advantage of an error (which you clearly did) and somebody finds out (which they very likely will), you will at least have to pay the money back and can be charged with fraud. Notify the company of the error: you should be able to keep the credit you were actually entitled to.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2012 04:22
|
|
|
Javid posted:Hypothetical/curiosity time! I got to thinking about lost and found items today for no real reason. The exact details vary a bit depending on circumstances and jurisdiction, but in general, there is such a thing as theft by finding, where you can be convicted of theft if you take a lost object with no intention of trying to find its owner. The best thing to do if you can't find the owner of the item is probably to hand it in to a police station.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2012 07:26
|
|
|
Clockwork Sputnik posted:This all sounds really fishy to me. How can the police impound the property of one person for the failing to appear of another? Friend/driver was not in any way associated with the vehicle (Not on title, insurance, etc). I can't speak for California, but there are laws like this in parts of Australia, allowing cars used in certain traffic offences to be impounded even if the car doesn't belong to the driver and is being used without the owner's permission. It's "justified" by pointing to situations like a kid borrowing their parents' car, but the main purpose it serves is basically to allow politicians to look Tough On Crime.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2012 05:26
|
|
|
Guy Axlerod posted:What kind of special handling applies to a set of conjoined twins? There's very little case law on this subject for obvious reasons, but you're in luck! Some dude with a law degree wrote an essay on the subject of conjoined twins in criminal law. His conclusion is that in the US, at least, you couldn't do anything that would have the effect of punishing the innocent twin. That assumes that one twin is found not guilty, of course.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2012 12:01
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:The only way they could conceivably pass a driving test is at the same time anyway. That part wasn't a hypothetical: those twins did in fact pass their driving tests. Apparently they had to do it twice, and one test counted for one twin's licence and the other test counted for the other twin. In practice they have to work together to operate the vehicle anyway, though.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2012 13:11
|
|
|
SneakySnake posted:Basically, am I going to be screwed out of the security deposit that I gave them because I moved out without giving notice, according to my leasing company? Did you give notice that you weren't renewing the lease by certified mail like the agreement you signed told you to?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2012 00:14
|
|
|
Bellagio Sampler posted:Hey I looked up libel on wikipedia and I still have no idea how it works. How would this hypothetical play out? The short answer is that it depends heavily on where you live. In some places the burden of proof is on Carl to demonstrate that your statements were both false and malicious; in other places the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that your statements were both true and in the public interest. Also, it's possible that you could be sued in any jurisdiction where one of those news shows was broadcast, or anywhere people were able to read your blog. Thuryl fucked around with this message at 10:12 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 10:08
|
|
|
CDG posted:I'm not sure what exactly you are asking here. The center requires those items if alcohol is being served/allowed at the dance. If you are trying to have alcohol at the dance without paying for it, having a written policy won't magic you out of anything. I think she's asking "what do I need to do so that my rear end is covered if a guest sneaks alcohol in?"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2013 01:38
|
|
|
Kalman posted:The last part is inartfully phrased but accurate - you can resell the original copy you purchased, but you can't sell the underlying work for profit without further permission. It's a bad description of basic copyright law - transfer of a copy is not transfer of the work. Display of the purchased work is legit, though (17 USC 109c) - you just can't slap it onto the side of a mug. I'm not sure uploading a copy of the sketch to your personal website where anyone in the world can view it and save a copy counts as "display (...) to viewers present at the place where the copy is located".
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2013 20:20
|
|
|
Kalman posted:It cant be done. You can opt out and sue separately, or you can stay in the class. Or opt out and not sue, I guess. Judging by his mention of Prenda Law, it sounds like his plan is to threaten to object to the settlement of the class-action suit unless the class attorneys agree to give him money. I'm not a lawyer, but this doesn't strike me as an excellent plan.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2013 00:09
|
|
|
Hip Hoptimus Prime posted:Yes, we have alternative schools. That's one the reasons I've been documenting like crazy--to have enough to get him sent there. I teach him twice a day and another teacher of his said that he also gets nasty/disruptive with her. This is getting way outside the scope of legal questions, but I'd say you should prioritise doing what's best for as many of your students as possible, rather than "winning". It's a pity the principal doesn't see it that way.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2013 01:52
|
|
|
Javid posted:Most places won't let you volunteer. Apparently if anyone on the jury actually wants to be there our judicial system will crumble or something. I would actually enjoy the experience but I have yet to get summoned once ever. I suppose the idea is that the jury pool is supposed to be a representative sample of the population, so letting people self-select themselves into that sample is going to skew things. Of course, this doesn't really work out that well in practice anyway on account of how there are about a million categories of people who can be excused from jury duty, but what are you gonna do.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2013 06:39
|
|
|
Epic Doctor Fetus posted:I'm sure it's in the goldmine somewhere. It was at least 10 years ago. It is. The SAclopedia article for "Taste Your Urine" has a link to it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
nm posted:They "gang expert" testified that it was "a gang gun" and therefore, if he'd just asked for it (remember, no proof he knew it was there), he would have gotten it. I know the answer to this question is just going to be even more depressing, but what are the usual qualifications for being a "gang expert"?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2014 08:08
|
|
|
While we're on ridiculous hypotheticals, what's the bare minimum actus reus required for attempted murder? Suppose Alice fires a loaded gun at Bob with intent to kill him, but misses. If those facts are established, that's obviously attempted murder. Now suppose Alice believes the gun is loaded, but it isn't so it doesn't go off, or that she attempts to fire a realistic fake gun that she believes to be real. That's still attempted murder, right? A quick look on Wikipedia suggests that factual impossibility isn't normally a defence to a charge of attempting to commit a crime -- for example, it mentions a case where a woman "poisoned" her husband with sugar, mistakenly believing it to be arsenic, and was convicted of attempted murder. If that article is broadly accurate, then even if the gun can't possibly be fired in the state it's in, if Alice believes that pulling the trigger will cause the gun to fire, and attempts to fire it with the intent of killing Bob, it seems like that's still attempted murder. So my question is, just how far down the rabbit hole is it possible to go with that line of reasoning? Suppose Alice is a devout adherent of some unconventional religion, and burns an effigy of Bob with the intent of cursing him to die. If the prosecutor can convince a jury that Alice really did believe her actions would lead to Bob's death, is that enough to convict her of attempted murder? After all, a curse isn't really a deadly weapon, but neither is a spoonful of sugar, and the case law seems to suggest you can still attempt to murder someone with sugar if you believe it's arsenic. Or is there some kind of reasonable-person test, where the prosecutor has to establish that the act is one that a reasonable person would believe could cause death? (Bonus question: is it relevant whether Alice believes that Bob's death will come about through the conscious intervention of a divine entity, or through a blind albeit supernatural process of cause and effect?)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2014 13:18
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:This is the typical problem posed to students studying inchoate offences. Yeah, the thought of some kind of insanity defence crossed my mind as I was writing it, too. I imagine in the real world it'd be hard to prove intent in a case like that anyway: even if the accused has been writing in their diary and posting all over the internet about how they totally cursed Bob with death, there's the question of how seriously they really took it all. I'm glad to hear it was a smart enough question that something like it gets asked to law students, at least. 
Thuryl fucked around with this message at 13:45 on Mar 7, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2014 13:41
|
|
|
Yeah, the fine print in the credits at the end of these shows always mentions that the award is paid for by the show. It has to be a big part of the reason why people with an obviously losing argument who are going to be mocked and yelled at by the judge still agree to show up. (It's a good deal for successful plaintiffs too, of course, since it means someone who's guaranteed to actually have money is on the hook for what they're owed.)Thanatosian posted:This is how court shows have been run since the OG People's Court. You're right; The People's Court specifically mentions that the award comes out of the loser's share of whatever they're getting paid. (I swear I'm not some kind of obsessive fan of courtroom reality TV, I'm just a fast reader.) Thuryl fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Mar 22, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
White1ce posted:are you for real? I don't think he's saying that's what he believes, he's saying that's the attitude of a lot of judges.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 09:08
|
|
|
Pixelated Dragon posted:That made me remember something I wondered about. I heard that pleading guilty to a camera-enforced red light ticket is usually not a good idea in states where the driver is liable. Do people get off the hook if the driver cannot be identified in the photos? There are places where making a sworn statement that someone else was driving the car can get you off the hook, but it's a very bad idea to do that if it's not true, because if they find out you're lying you can and will be charged with perjury. This happened to an Australian federal judge a while back: he ruined his career and spent two years in the pokey because he tried to weasel out of a $77 traffic ticket.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:No it was more like two Jurors didn't show up one morning, the Bailiff had everybody wait for a while and finally when they led in the remaining Jurors the Judge announced it was a mistrial and everybody was excused. The Judge said he couldn't specify the reason for a mistrial but being short two Jurors seems like a possible reason to me. It's possible those jurors were caught doing independent research on the case or something. That's looked upon pretty poorly and could definitely lead to a mistrial.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
Syncopated posted:What happens if two people agree on the terms of a contract in advance, then when they meet up to sign it the one who brings the actual papers has changed the terms, and the other guy just signs it presuming it to be the earlier agreed upon terms. Can the other guy get out of it by arguing that he was tricked or is he hosed? A contract will often say something along the lines of "the terms of this contract supersede any previous agreements between us" precisely to prevent situations like that. Read what you're signing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:For the same reason he doesn't understand literally anything else happening around him? He's gotta cast his spell, if he lets the other guy go first, his spell won't work (it didn't work this time because clearly everyone else cheated and didn't respect his words of power.) Do they never notice the fundamental flaw in their reasoning here? If people can just ignore them, they weren't really words of power in the first place. Like, if they were to just go "I refuse to acknowledge the authority of this court: do whatever you're going to do" and leave it that, that'd at least be a coherent if stupid act of civil disobedience. But all of the painstaking effort that goes into the precise formatting of the bullshit they're spouting has nothing to do with fairness or justice and everything to do with some supposed set of secret legal cheat codes that judges are bound to obey, so the only possible justification for it is if it works, which it demonstrably doesn't. Thuryl fucked around with this message at 16:04 on Jun 3, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:In case you were asking about this as well: one of the basic defenses to assault (battery) is consent. Note that this may not be universally true, depending on what jurisdiction you're in and what you're doing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Brown
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It ok if I share a particularly beautiful reddit legal advice request? It's just 
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2017 04:00
|
|
.
|
spacetoaster posted:People shouldn't be allowed to have pencils and pens. Over here in Australia there's a famous legal case from the early 90s where someone was arrested for carrying a weapon because he was wearing a studded belt that he could, in theory, have taken off and hit someone with. He did eventually win on appeal, if that makes you feel any better about the state of the world. (And yes, if you were wondering, it was a pretty blatant case of the cops harassing a member of a minority; he was dressed in gay counterculture style.)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:“Pressing charges” isn’t a real thing. Well, not a common thing, at least. Technically Virginia and Rhode Island still allow private prosecutions, but that's not what people normally mean by the term.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2018 21:38
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:1) Is this plea deal good given whats known about the case superficially? (defendant's age, race, location, who the defendant attorney is, who the judge is, the tone of documents posted by the police or victim, etc.) Is your endgame here to provoke hundreds of angry blog posts with titles along the lines of "algorithm tells black people to plead guilty", because that's the outcome I'm envisioning I mean, maybe that could somehow do some good in the long run, but probably not for you
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2018 08:10
|
|
|
22 Eargesplitten posted:Colorado: Is constructive dismissal considered universally without cause or is it case by case? If you're interested in whether you can collect unemployment benefits if you quit, it seems like a constructive dismissal is normally treated the same as a regular firing; if you hosed up bad enough that you wouldn't be able to collect unemployment if you were fired for it, then the fact that they cut your pay and you quit instead doesn't change anything. The good news is that Colorado's standard for being ineligible for unemployment after a firing is "gross misconduct", which means you'd have to gently caress up in a worse way than just being generally bad at your job.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2018 00:30
|
|
|
Bazanga posted:I'm considering joining a company with a management position that has certain milestones where I will receive a bonus payout. For example, after 2 years with the company I will receive a bonus payment and a decent number of shares of the company stock worth around 2% ownership (it's a small, non-publicly traded company). What type of clause should I insist on in my employment contract that would prevent them from terminating me at 23 months to prevent the bonus payment and equity transfer? I'm in Nebraska, if that makes a difference. Speaking from a practical perspective rather than a legal one, you probably won't get them to agree to not terminate you, but you might be able to get them to agree to prorate the bonus if you're terminated early. Of course, if they're planning in advance to screw you over, they won't agree to anything.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2018 04:32
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:If the police uncover new evidence or you confess after your acquittal, in my country double jeopardy absolutely does not apply to this and the prosecution can apply to reopen the case if: You've done something criminal to affect the case (obstruction, witness tampering etc) and this becomes known after the fact, or there is reason to believe you're guilty of the crime itself due to new evidence, and the crime carries a penalty of more than three years prison time. In that case, boom, you're back to square one and it'll be treated like any other criminal case. It's very very rarely done and there's a whole rigmarole to get it through reopening, but it's absolutely an option. Sometimes it's actually great to be american. This can theoretically happen under extremely limited circumstances in the USA, if a court rules that the original trial was a sham and you were never truly in jeopardy in the first place. It requires ironclad proof that you bribed a judge or something on that level, though. The retrial of mobster Harry Aleman is probably the best-known case of a court ruling that double jeopardy didn't apply because there was no true jeopardy in the original trial.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2019 06:31
|
|
|
The answer varies by country. England, Australia, and a few other countries have what's called the cab-rank rule, where if you're a barrister you can't turn down a client if you have the skills and resources to represent them competently and they're able to pay.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2019 00:29
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:I didn't know that. I just picked George Foreman because his name is a brand. There have been a few cases where somebody incorporated a trademark into their stage name and got sued for trademark infringement, but I can't find cases where the suit was brought by an individual person over the use of their own name. I'm sure there are people named Sasha Grey who aren't thrilled about a porn star using their name as a stage name, but as far as I can tell none of them have successfully sued her over it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2019 23:18
|
|
|
BonerGhost posted:Also I'd like to say that this is hilarious. What other common legal issues have excellent names like this, besides CYA? The eggshell skull rule is a good one. Basically, if your negligence injures someone, and their injuries are much worse than would normally be expected because of a medical condition on their part, you're still fully liable. However, this can be modified by the crumbling skull rule, which states that if their condition was already getting worse on its own before the injury, you're only liable for the difference between how bad their condition is because of the injury and how bad it would have been without the injury. There's also the doctrine of the fertile octogenarian and the unborn widow, a set of unlikely scenarios that have to be taken into account when determining the validity of wills and trusts in some jurisdictions. Thuryl fucked around with this message at 09:31 on Feb 29, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2020 09:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 23:37 |
|
|
PHIZ KALIFA posted:I know this was asked already but I can't find it, what's the course of action when your company falsely claims your job is vital, despite not actually being classified as vital? Also, can companies really force you to use sick time when the company is shut down? The workplace advice blog Ask a Manager just posted a state-by-state breakdown of who you can contact that's supposed to be enforcing the current lockdown orders on employers. I can't speak to whether the relevant authority will actually do anything where you happen to live, but if you wanna try calling someone, you can probably find out who to call.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2020 22:34
|
|