|
joat mon posted:Sodomy refers to Sodom, as in Sodom an Gomorrah. The "Sin of Sodom" has been a Rorschach blot for various sins ever since. Adultery, unkindness to the poor, pride, homosexuality, inhospitality and lying have all been the sin of sodom. Christians have connected it more specifically to homosexual sex since the 6th century, and later expanded the interpretation to include any non-procreative sex. I don't remember the citation or anything, but there's a fairly famous British divorce case in which the wife alleged that she needed a divorce because the husband engaged in "certain Hunnish practices." I love that phrase.
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 09:01 |
|
|
I offer this as a general statement; I have no background in intellectual property. But for anyone who thinks "what's the harm in contacting the other attorney?" As a "for instance," contacting the lawyer lets them know that -- even if they didn't do things properly -- you have actual notice of the allegations of infringement. A few months down the road, (after you've been sued) your lawyer wants to assert some notice-related defect to get this kicked right off the bat. But that can't happen because you've already acknowledged receipt of their demand. By contacting them, you're saying that yes, you're the same Jet Ready Go they wanted to sue, and yes, you received the notice they sent and yes, you knew what they were alleging in the letter. "Judge, even if we didn't do things properly, JRG clearly knew what was going on because they called us, so ignore our failure to follow procedure." The fact is you don't know what harm it could do in contacting their attorney. That doesn't make it harmless, it makes it a trap into which you're walking.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2013 03:10
|
|
|
It all basically boils down to "If you're coming here to ask if you need a lawyer then, yes, you need a lawyer."
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
Groundskeeper Silly posted:Thanks lawyers (and non-lawyer dumbasses!) for all the time you put into this thread. Michigan lawyer here. We do have felonies at the state court level. If you want a list of felonies recognized, defined, and prosecuted under state law: http://courts.mi.gov/education/mji/Publications/Documents/alpha-crime-list.pdf Please note a few of my favorites: Adultery (MCL 750.30) Cohabitation of divorced parties (MCL 750.32) (more severe than "lewd and lascivious cohabitation" which is a misdemeanor per MCL 750.335) Seduction (of an unmarried woman) (MCL 750.532)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2013 05:26
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Maybe your friend has no idea what "felony murder" is and thought you were talking about "murder, which is a felony" instead? For what it's worth (and for anyone who doesn't know), Michigan DOESN'T observe the felony murder rule. We abandoned it in... 1990, I think? People v Aaron is the case.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
Groundskeeper Silly posted:I think I mentioned that in my post. My friend said it doesn't matter that we don't observe it. I know you mentioned it, I was just agreeing with you in case anyone doubted it. Again, your friend was all kinds of incorrect. Murder is a felony, for one thing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:Just saw this story in the paper: "If convicted" is probably just bad copywriting in the paper. Someone on the writing staff got in the habit of using that whenever discussing charges and no one bothered to think about it. Unless there's some goofy procedural thing going on that I can't fathom, you're correct. Conspiracy as a crime is an agreement between two or more people to commit a given crime at some point in the future. There are some finicky little rules about it that vary by jurisdiction, but in its simplest form, when you and Gavrilo agree that you're going to work together to assassinate the Archduke of Austria, you're guilty of conspiracy (leaving out the little rules I mentioned). As to the sentencing, the "why" behind any individual term of years is anyone's guess. I notice that your wording says what each defendant faces, not what the range is for the crime. So it's possible one of them could have a sentencing deal worked in, or the other one has a whole string of priors that makes their prospects worse.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2013 02:45
|
|
|
baquerd posted:What are the legal terms for the liability incurred when you run over someone's fence with your car? Improper conversion or something like that? Depends on if it was intentional or accidental.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2013 17:51
|
|
|
I admittedly don't practice in disability law, but given that the standard is "reasonable accommodation" (at least I think it is), putting up "no peanut" signs in a few locations strikes me as a pretty trivial burden. Despite some of the... vitriol in this thread, it's not asking to create a perfect peanut-free zone. It's asking for some signs to go up to lower the odds of a chance encounter while going about the daily business. And possibly for a section of library to go snack-free if needed. I REALLY don't understand how putting up "no peanut" signs can create liability where none existed previously. If they heard that from their lawyers, I'd like to read that memo. For my money, the more dangerous scenario is knowing you have a student with a severe allergy and doing nothing about it. The seatbelt analogy used previously was good. The one in my mind is if they had a rickety stairway and they were told they needed to put up a railing for a mobility-limited student. Then they said "no, because that student could slip even with the railing and we'd be on the hook. So we'll just leave the staircase rickety and all will be well." Having notice of a hazard and deliberately doing nothing about it doesn't limit liability. Again, this is all me shooting from the hip. I would definitely check about a free consult with a local disability lawyer, but the claim as presented to me doesn't seem at all unreasonable. (The only reason I can think of a distinction between elementary school and university for this purpose is that elementary school is compulsory. I don't know that it matters at all, but as a hypothesis, I can see having a higher duty of care when handling kids who have no choice but to be there.)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2013 06:38
|
|
|
Very fast Googling suggests that the 2008 ADA Amendments Act expanded the definition of "substantial limitation." Many of the pages seem to contemplate allergies specifically (of course, that's what I'm searching for, so a little bit of result bias there). Edit: And it looks like there was a settlement between Lesley University for the university's failure to make accommodations for students with food allergies. http://www.ada.gov/lesley_university_sa.htm Alaemon fucked around with this message at 15:52 on Apr 28, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2013 15:46
|
|
|
I'm not barred in your state, but I could assist you in filing a motion for belly rubbins.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
The court has a flag with a fringe on it, meaning it's sitting in admiralty?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
joat mon posted:The bolded portion is specific to Nevada. But how do you have sex with an organization? Is that really a good faith extension of Citizens United? (Punch line about my good faith extension to be added later.)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2013 17:46
|
|
|
Yes, I get that part. And I was being facetious. However, in the most literal reading of the rule, I would argue it's a meaningless exception. When you represent an organization, the organization is the client, not the CEO or the board or any individual or anything. So if you represent Generic Brothel, LLC, your client is the LLC, not any employee of the organization. So, from that perspective, I see no real problem with 1.8. I'm not saying it's a great idea, mind you. Just that I don't think it's within the ambit of the rule. (I should add that I have done no research on the issue, I'm going wholly off instinct and a desire to make a half-assed corporate personhood joke.) Alaemon fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Jul 29, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
Soylent Pudding posted:Most states deal with this using a Simultaneous Death Act. Simultaneous often can mean within a day or two if say a husband died in a car crash but the wife died 30 hours later in the ICU. The general rule is that each spouse will be considered to have died before the other. This means that for each spouse the property is distributed under that spouse's will as if the other spouse is deceased. Hypothetically under the general rule your dad's will would distribute your dad's assets as if your mom had been dead for a while, and your mom's will would distribute your mom's assets as if your dad had been dead for a while. The opinions of you and your half siblings don't really matter at all. These are of course just general principles. I have not reviewed Michigan's specific laws and there may be some important quirks. As per usual, this is general "state of the law" stuff, offered off-the-cuff (or at least with the least amount of Googling I'm willing to do), and without getting to in detail into anyone's particular problem. But since I can elaborate a little bit... Michigan used to have an official Simultaneous Death Act, but that specific provision was repealed and incorporated into EPIC, our current probate code. Generally, in order to have take a gift from someone's estate, you have to survive the decedent by 120 hours. This applies for intestacy (MCL 700.2104) and to wills (MCL 700.2702). There are some scenarios for wills in which the 120 hour rule will not apply in that latter section, dealing with specific provisions that have to be included in the will (provisions for simultaneous death, common disaster, or contingent on surviving testator by a specific period). So in the hypothetical posed where both testators die simultaneously, and assuming the wills make no provision overriding the 120 hour rule, both testators will be treated as having predeceased the other and the property will be distributed accordingly. Preferences of survivors are not a factor.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2013 05:57
|
|
|
I'm not barred in CA, so can't offer you any particular advice, but you may want to look into that state's vexatious litigant statutes/proceedings. No clue if CA's individual statute would apply, but it does exist to handle people who bring repeated frivolous suits, motions, etc. If nothing else, you could ask the attorney to whom you're speaking and they could give you more guidance.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2013 18:13
|
|
|
Hire the attorney. I imagine that's going to be the consensus of the thread and not because we're trying to protect the guild. The trouble with going it alone is always, always that you don't know what you don't know. You don't know if you have case-specific strengths or weaknesses that impact your situation. Are you in front of the hangin' judge who lost a teen to a drunk driver and won't accept certain pleas? Were you pulled over by an officer who routinely ignores the testing protocols for the DataMaster (or whatever)? Were you given a field sobriety test that's regularly employed but actually inadmissible in your state? Are you getting an offer that's on the low/middle/high end for someone in your situation? Etc. Moreover, as an attorney, the worst disasters happen when you get brought in too late. When I was clerking, one of the most common refrains I heard from retained attorneys was something along the lines of "He had a perfectly straightforward case but he tried to handle it himself. So now I'm trying to clean that up, too." Additionally, your attorney will tell you how to display to the court and the prosecution that you realize you've screwed up and you want to make sure it never happens again. The sooner you hire the attorney, the sooner you can get cracking. ("He's had three days free and he's been to three meetings in that time" -- that's the sort of thing that can only help you.) You want to minimize the damage to your life. The best way to do that is to get the damage control person in your corner ASAP. You've got enough difficulty ahead without trying to defuse a bomb on top of it all. You aren't equipped for that.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2013 06:15
|
|
|
FlashBewin posted:Right, but my sister signed a waiver saying she didn't want part of the inheritance. Surely there has to be a way to undo that. Not your personal attorney, don't have specific knowledge of your facts, etc. MCL §700.2909(1): "A disclaimer, or a written waiver of the right to disclaim, is binding upon the disclaimant or person waiving the right to disclaim, and all persons claiming through or under him or her." (Emphasis mine) So, she can't just take it back and say "nope, I don't like it any more." Her recourse would be to prove that the disclaimer was not valid in the first place. In other words, that she was insane, that she was under threat of physical force, that there was fraud going on, etc. High hurdle to clear, I see nothing that you've described that meets those scenarios. (The other avenue I guess would be to prove that one of the statutory elements of the disclaimer wasn't satisfied; that should have been handled in the findings when the judge accepted the disclaimer initially.) It is technically possible that she could prove there was no valid disclaimer to begin with, but I wouldn't put money down on it. Alaemon fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Oct 21, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2013 00:21
|
|
|
euphronius posted:In Pennsylvania current wife could take I think 30% of the estate notwithstanding the Will. I hope you aren't in Pennsylvania. I don't know about PA (let alone Australia), but in my state, I doubt she could take the elective share under the facts presented. I think the 10 year separation would be sufficient to qualify as desertion, which renders a spouse ineligible for the elective share.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2013 15:58
|
|
|
Isn't there an exception for not sticking around during Testator's final illness? I wonder if that's arguable.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Do any courts allow deposition by video conference? Is that a thing? EDIT: I just reread. I interpreted "video conference" incorrectly, obviously. I'm leaving my answer as written so my shame will be eternal. Yes. My court had a medical malpractice trial earlier this month in which several of the depositions had been taken earlier, taped, and then just had the tape played for the jury (with edits to account for objections and the like). They are not terribly interesting things. We also had one witnesses whose deposition testimony was read in to the record. Plaintiff's attorney one played himself, plaintiff's attorney two played the witness and they just read the script. That's even less interesting. Especially since attorney two had to underact as to all points -- if you get too excited on anything good for your client, opposing counsel will object; if you underplay anything bad for your client, you get the same thing. Kalman posted:I think that you can't do video depositions for criminal cases and use them at trial because of the confrontation clause, but nm or someone else who does criminal work could probably answer that. My state full-on prohibits depositions for discovery in criminal cases. Alaemon fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Feb 20, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
Judge Judy drives me crazy by her scattershot application of hearsay, though. She gets super cranky any time she's presented with an out-of-court statement (usually even if it might not be offered for the truth of the matter asserted). If parties even try, she shouts them down on hearsay. But then she's almost always willing to read police reports. That really grinds my gears for some reason.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:Police reports are hearsay but in most states, if they're certified, they're admissible as a hearsay exception. I know, but she doesn't say it so I KNOW that it's certified and qualifies as an exception. It's like she doesn't even care about building a record!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:When I watched the video I figured this -should- only happen if the deponent is an individual and not a corporation or organization. The deponent is obviously not an expert because the transcript would go against the expert's qualifications. If the deponent is supposedly an organization and they failed to produce someone competent to testify then I'd push for both a new deposition and for the other side to pay my fees and costs. That said, I also thought, the attorney was too concerned about the size of his dick or something. If someone says they don't know what something is then you patiently circle the issue for a while until he says something like "Oh, that's a xerox machine." It is entirely possible the deponent had never heard or understood the word "photocopier." The actual attorney in that case has sounded off and says that while the dialogue was accurate, the tone was not. His contention is that the witness was deliberately being coy and everyone in the room knew it. His intent was to drag that out for as long as possible to demonstrate bad faith by the witness before the Ohio Supreme Court.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:I have also found that the less people have, the more they'll fight over a loving end table. If all of a person's belonging fit into a trunk, then they want multiple witnesses to testify regarding the location of their Green Day CD. This is unequivocally my experience. As part of my job, I'm the penultimate stop for (allegedly) uncontested divorces for pro pers. Before they go in front of the judge, I have to give them the thumbs up on their paperwork. It's not uncommon where the parties agree on EVERYTHING except the cable bill, or the cell phone bill, or whatever. We're totally fine on custody and support, but I AM NOT PAYING for that pay-per-view!
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:My favorite was the two attorney's sitting on the couch for over an hour while watching their clients fight over a head of lettuce. This was after recording who got what other refrigerated valuables. When the property settlement is the only unresolved issue remaining in a divorce trial, I give them a little speech at our status/settlement conferences: "If it gets to trial and the property issue has not been resolved, Judge will pick two auctioneers. The only choice remaining for the parties will be which auctioneer they want. Proceeds will be split." I've never seen it fail.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
cruft posted:I feel like I may have heard this story in Sunday School. I sounded him out on the issue once and it turns out he frowns on ACTUAL baby splitting. Also it seems like, for a lot of out litigants, obtaining more time with the kids is incidental. The real goal is deny the other parent as much time as possible; that's a solid win. We had one just recently where the mother was trying to get some parenting time changed so she could spend Mother's Day with the kids, even though it was the dad's week. Dad staunchly refused, even when it was pointed out that Father's Day fell on her week and he was just setting himself up to miss that holiday with them.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Legal question: In March last year, Texas added its own bastardized version of a federal 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. I clerk for a judge, and motions for summary disposition are (in my mind) the most important part of my job. We have Michigan Court Rule 2.116(C)(8): failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. It's one of 10 grounds for summary disposition of a case. We don't have a mandatory provision whereby the prevailing party automatically gets costs. And if the judge grants the motion, the losing party shall be given a chance to amend the complaint unless such complaint would, in the court's estimation, be futile. (C)(8) is probably the second-most common ground for summary disposiiton I see. ((C)(10), no genuine issue of material fact being the most common). It really just requires paying attention in your complaint, so you state all the elements of a given claim. If Plaintiff doesn't identify a duty owed by Defendant, their negligence claim must fail, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
sullat posted:First case we read in property law was a dispute over a foxhunt that lasted ~40 years, outlasted both original parties and bankrupted both families. I've heard it said that a good lawsuit is like a good bottle of wine; its something you want to pass down to your children. One of my favorite passages of Dickens is in the opening pages of Bleak House, where he describes Jarndyce v Jarndyce, a case that's been in the system for generations. quote:Jarndyce and Jarndyce drones on. This scarecrow of a suit has, in course of time, become so complicated that no man alive knows what it means. The parties to it understand it least, but it has been observed that no two Chancery lawyers can talk about it for five minutes without coming to a total disagreement as to all the premises. Innumerable children have been born into the cause; innumerable young people have married into it; innumerable old people have died out of it. Scores of persons have deliriously found themselves made parties in Jarndyce and Jarndyce without knowing how or why; whole families have inherited legendary hatreds with the suit. The little plaintiff or defendant who was promised a new rocking-horse when Jarndyce and Jarndyce should be settled has grown up, possessed himself of a real horse, and trotted away into the other world.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
I know we have at least one California lawgoon, I'm hoping this can get some traction. I have a friend in LA County who needs to talk to an attorney. Family law and bankruptcy are the two main issues at hand. I'm on the other side of the country, so can't really do any referrals, but I'd love it if I can give her a few names. PM me as needed. Alaemon fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Feb 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 09:01 |
|
|
nm posted:Lemme see. I assume not high end? That's my read on it. I think it's going to be more about debt than assets.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2015 03:31
|
|