|
Solomon Grundy posted:$175 is not a lot of money. The filing fee for any lawsuit anywhere is likely more than that. Forget it and move on. The rest of the responses are law-school hypothetical nonsense. Maybe, Mr. Solomon Grundy, ODC wants justice, even if said justice might come at a price to him. Isn't that worth fighting for? BTW I could probably find a lawyer who would work for 33% of the recovery + fees.
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2010 02:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 12:30 |
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:Possibly illegal under federal antitrust as a hypo. Without knowing anything at all about antitrust, isn't the standard one of unreasonable restraint of trade? How would that be balanced against at-will employment (which is what I thought the answer would be)?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2010 17:10
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:Apparently the former, given the antitrust liability attaching to the latter! Explain again how it eliminates competition or prevents new participants from entering into the market to compete. Because as far as I can tell, there are still two companies competing, whether or not this deal is agreed upon by the second employer.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2010 18:37
|
|
|
Craigslist ad. Offer to pay in diet coke and / or basic food items.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2010 01:00
|
|
|
To put it in perspective, the time to file suit for a tort claim is typically 2-3 years depending on the state. While I'm not familiar with NJ law, in Texas insurance companies often offer a rental car when waiting for repairs / total loss payment, or at the least, a "loss of use" per diem amount for that period. Wouldn't hurt to ask. The deal with a month sounds like its either contractual or company policy on their part. Regardless, you could always use your insurance and just let them subrogate against the at-fault party (assuming you have appropriate coverage).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2010 23:24
|
|
|
Jeephand posted:QUESTION: PS he mainly argues that you shouldn't talk to the police when you are a suspect, NOT "under no circumstances." Also, lol at his TTT "credentials."
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2010 00:06
|
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:Cum Laude Harvard? pfff that isn't even Yale! Whatever legitimacy he might have had is all but gone through his teaching of functional retards. And I was wrong - its FTT not TTT.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2010 00:25
|
|
|
tishthedish posted:What do you mean by minimum liability policy? He is referring to the lowest that the policy limits of the other driver's insurance could possibly be, based on Texas law (policy limits being the most that the insurance company will reimburse for the claim). With sparse treatment, you shouldn't have to worry about reaching even minimum policy limits since you would never hit that limit. Yes, it is possible to obtain treatment after a long gap, but insurance adjusters will look at it skeptically, and likely will continue to low-ball (or even ignore) the additional treatment. Remember - you aren't limited to what the adjusters offer you, and if you choose, you can file a lawsuit. But if that is what you are thinking, getting a lawyer earlier is better than later. On the flip-side: it often isn't worth filing suit in soft-tissue auto-accident claims, depending on the facts, of course (ex: low property damage, minimal treatment, no aggravating factors i.e. drunk driving)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2010 03:21
|
|
|
Legal Questions Mega-O-Wamma XIV: Tell us what jurisdiction you are in!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2010 00:28
|
|
|
Fraud would turn on whether or not he knew he was prevented from making the claim. If he did know, omission of such a material fact would likely be misleading.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2010 16:53
|
|
|
Jefferoo posted:I need some help, guys. I just moved out to LA, and in the mixup, my car insurance with Progressive expired. Solomon Grundy posted:You turned left into his lane of travel. You did not have the right of way. You are at fault. Not necessarily. It could depend on how the intersection was controlled.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2011 19:41
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:And we've spotted the new, marginally less insane Pookie He/she has been doing this, in this thread, for a while now. Legal experience: once attempted to contest a traffic ticket. Wyatt posted:Potentially irrelevant but interesting side-note: There is currently legislation advancing in Wisconsin that would create a so-called "phantom motor vehicle," which is one that causes a crash without actually touching the other car. Under this new law, damages to an insured car caused by some numbskull could be claimed against the victimized driver's uninsured motorist coverage. It's designed to account for exactly this sort of thing, where some idiot causes a wreck without actually being in one. I am not familiar with California law beyond what cursory searches can yield, so I don't know if you have anything like this available to you. But your insurance adjuster would know (not that they're known for jumping at the chance to pay out for repairs). That's pretty interesting, but it seems hard to prove. At least in Texas, I've seen cases of faulty evasion where it almost seems like the victim would have been better off just taking the hit, since it would usually stop the at-fault car. TheBestDeception fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Jan 27, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2011 19:14
|
|
|
powertoiletduck posted:Hi guys - copyright question. This was totally a case in copyright. I forgot the answer  Maybe EvilWeasel knows
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2011 03:49
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:Step 1: get a lawyer Does the Michigan AG's office not offer child support services?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2012 21:03
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:I doubt it. In fact, if you go to the press with this they may cover it, and press coverage helps push regulatory agencies to act. Under the FCA (and many state analogues), public disclosure serves to bar the bringing of an individual's qui tam suit for fraud. TheBestDeception fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Nov 8, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2012 19:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 12:30 |
|
|
El_Elegante posted:No, you idiot. "Other people do it all the time" is exactly what you're saying, and it's exactly the wrong defense. You can and should plead poverty as lawyers who understand How Things Work are telling you. The best part is when he proceeded to try to answer the question following his own.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2012 05:07
|
|