|
In cases with extremely complex evidentiary issues, in addition to expert witnesses the court will sometimes appoint "special masters" as well.
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2010 00:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 14:30 |
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:Possibly illegal under federal antitrust as a hypo. I'd take a look at whether the jurisdiction has support for non-compete agreements being presumptively unconscionable; or at least having a high burden to get past.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2010 04:04
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:It has nothing to do with a non-compete. It's a blackballing. Monochrome posted:I have a bit of a strange question involving business/labor law in Massachusetts. It very much has something to do with the non-compete, since CEO A's actions are essentially to enforce the terms of the contract he just released the employees from. If there were some flaw in the release, the validity of the non-compete remains an issue. (And even if there weren't, the existence of the agreement and subsequent release is evidence of intent, which may or may not matter). Leif. fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Feb 28, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2010 22:34
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:You're talking about the contract issue, where the CEO is taking an action in contravention to the consideration offered in the contract. Since the poster was released from his non-compete, whether or not it's presumptively unconscionable is irrelevant. But calling up another CEO and saying, "Yo, don't hire my laid off guys," has nothing to do with a non-compete, and it's probably some form of anti-competitive collaboration between the two companies. This would be correct, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm specifically pointing out the possibility that because the CEO released the contract, but then took actions in direct opposition to that, there is the possibility that he would argue that the contract was never released in the first place (possibly through some sort of defect in the modifying contract), which would put the validity of the non-compete at issue.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2010 12:45
|
|
|
Which of those is less work and cost: suing the poster and getting an injunction? Or calling up the other guy and saying "Yo, don't hire any of my former employees. Thanks, wanna get coffee?"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2010 18:00
|
|
|
Were you damaged by those words? In some definable way, not just "they hurt my feelings", i.e. you got fired or something.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2010 15:19
|
|
|
I'm not actually clear on who is where, but --- bolded section.quote:Pennsylvania Long-Arm Statute
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2010 20:59
|
|
|
It's not entirely clear also why you'd want to sue in PA instead of LA, and you haven't mentioned nearly enough facts to determine whether the elements for libel could be pled.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2010 21:04
|
|
|
MissConduct posted:I was libeled in print. The party in question sent a hard copy letter to my employer who then forwarded it to me. Well it's good that you're talking to an attorney, because a brief look at LA case law suggests that defamation per se in that state only carries a presumption of falsity and malice; not a presumption of damages. I hope you're not filing on your own. -e- Also, not that it is anything more than persuasive, but the Restatement (Second) of Torts (§571 if anyone is bored) strongly suggests that there are limitations based on the kinds of crimes accused - i.e. was it a crime of moral turpitude, was it a crime in that jurisdiction or others, was it an indictable offense, was it a felony, is the crime punishable by imprisonment in the first instance, etc. These are factors in many states (not necessarily LA) as to whether an accusation of a crime can constitute defamation per se. I'm not saying either way. I'm saying you should let your attorney handle it. Leif. fucked around with this message at 10:45 on Mar 5, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2010 10:38
|
|
|
BigRedCat posted:In October of 08 I was involved in a car accident in Virginia. My girlfriend and I were rear ended and pushed into the car in front of us. She was driving and I was a passenger. We were in a minivan and got hit by a f-350 hauling a horse sized trailer, and the impact was hard enough to total the minvan. The police determined the other driver was 100% at fault, and he was issued a ticket for failure to control his vehicle. It happened less than a mile from a hospital so, we were driven to the hospital rather than waiting for an ambulance. They did x-rays and said I had whiplash and spinal straightening. I ended up taking Percocet for a couple days, and missed a day of work. Was your chiropracter also an orthopedic surgeon? If not, his opinion is meaningless. Go find a personal injury attorney. For this kind of case, most will work on a contingency fee basis, and assuming all the logistics on your case are still good, you should expect to have your medical care covered (you'll at a minimum get an IME -- independent medical evaluation -- from a real doctor, not a chiro. Your treatment may also include seeing a chiro, but generally they are worthless). -e- important questions to ask: what doctor would you be seeing? does the attorney have any business/dedicated referral relationships with the doctor? Does the doctor also own a surgicenter/MRI center/physical therapy and pain management center? These are things to look out for, you don't want to be sent to a doctor mill that is just going to funnel money up the vertical slice to the attorney.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2010 04:04
|
|
|
Outcome three: Gas guy says your stove is in Wisconsin, you are sentenced to death.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2010 10:25
|
|
|
TotalBiscuit, basically what everyone else said, but I also should point out that there's no perjury there. He took advantage of the same DMCA that you did. The system is intentionally designed to put you in the situation you are in: If the litigation was important, you can file suit; otherwise, you let it go and don't clog up the judicial system with pointless litigation.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2010 05:16
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:As a matter of federal law, police checkpoints are generally constitutional. Individual states are free to outlaw them, though -- Michigan has (which is interesting, because it was a Michigan case that established their constitutionality). D.C. has challenged them and I believe found them illegal, though the Metro PD does them anyway. It was a big scandal last year because they basically said gently caress you, and someone got fired over it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2010 19:06
|
|
|
Depending on how he operates his site and whether he's a publisher or not, he may be shielded from liability anyway under 230 CDA.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2010 03:23
|
|
|
Surly posted:Huh, I wasn't aware of this statute. Good to know. Just know that it is limited, it is not a blanket immunity, and you need to be sure that it applies to you first, before you act under the assumption that you have that protection.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2010 03:42
|
|
|
Nautatrol Rx posted:Well, this judge is kind of a celebrity as well because she spends a lot of her time going around to schools doing drug courts and local tv coverage. She's doing the Judge Judy kind of act. You should talk to the guys who run JAABlog. They've been doing that poo poo for years and just now are having to deal with repercussions (bar complaint that probably will go nowhere I think, haven't been following that closely). Granted, they're Florida not Cali, but there's a lot of connections between Broward and SoCal trial attorneys. You might find a resource there. Also it's a great read.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2010 04:27
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Yeah, the person with the strongest claim wouldve been my mom. For damages thoug, that's my question-do you need actual ones like therapist sessions? Seems like you wouldn't but I don't know that area at all. Your mom is the only one with a claim; most states if not all have a "presence" requirement to the outrageous conduct element. Some even require that the injured party has physically seen the outrageous conduct (as opposed to merely hearing it); others only require that the party make a sensory perception contemporaneously with the action. Her claim is also not as strong as you think. A crank call like that won't necessary meet the outrageous conduct standard. -e- And on a related note, while doing some research entirely unrelated to this: an instance where a ship's crew member commented within the hearing of a passenger's wife that the passenger was probably dead and that his body would be sucked under the ship and chopped up by the propellers was found not to be "outrageous conduct" and therefore did not meet the requirements for IIED. Wallis v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 306 F.3d 827 (9th Cir. 2002). quote:During this time, the ship was traveling towards Athens. No one saw Mr. Wallis fall overboard. By the time the Grand Princess docked in Athens, it was apparent that Mr. Wallis was missing from the ship...Plaintiff asserts that during this time, "Commodore Moulin [the ship's master] subjected [her] to remarks that her husband had fallen overboard; that he died in his fall from the ship; that his body would be sucked under the ship, chopped up by the propellers and probably would not be recovered." Later that afternoon, Commodore Moulin informed plaintiff that the Grand Princess was set to leave port at 5:30 p.m., and that she had a choice of disembarking or continuing with the cruise. Plaintiff chose to disembark and stay in Athens. Also, Admiralty law  Leif. fucked around with this message at 01:11 on May 6, 2010 |
|
#
¿
May 5, 2010 18:26
|
|
|
Offrampmotel posted:The point I was trying to make is that the police cannot pull you over on a whim. If he has reasonable suspicion to stop you, then he is justified in detaining you, unless a lot has changed since I left law enforcement, which I doubt. I didn't do super great in Crim Pro, but I think the point that they're making is that he is only justified in detaining you as long as the reasonable suspicion continues to last. Once that suspicion has abated, the detention is no longer justified.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2010 02:12
|
|
|
ATwoSlotToaster posted:I think this is frivolous but I am still curious to know the answer: It depends on the circumstances whether the lyrics were a work made for hire or a joint venture between the authors.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2010 17:23
|
|
|
ATwoSlotToaster posted:It was definitely a joint effort. Not necessarily. There are factors that determine whether this is the case that aren't always easy to figure out. And even then, depending on the makeup of the band, it may not end the inquiry there.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2010 04:07
|
|
|
Apartment leases are examples of how everything you learned about contracts of adhesion in law school is bullshit. Nothing about an apartment lease from a big leasing company will favor you. You will still lose if you sue over it. My last lease even has a clause saying that you waive any claim of unconscionability in the contract.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2010 08:12
|
|
|
Stormtrooper posted:I have a question about copyright. Why are pictures/scans of medieval manuscripts copyrighted? (Example) Surely the original work is in the public domain, and as I understand it, you can't copyright a photo/scan of a public domain work if its intentionally a close duplicate. This is based on my understanding of American law, and most of these manuscripts are in Europe (the example I linked is in the UK). Do copyright laws differ so much that its possible to copyright such images? Yes. In the U.S., a case called Bridgeman v. Corel controls this, stating that a photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional work does not gain independent copyright status, because it lacks originality. It's a district court case, but generally and widely considered to be the law nationwide. This means that if the original work is in the public domain, a photograph of it is likewise in the public domain. The U.K., however, takes the opposite view. They hold photographic reproductions of 2D works to have independent copyright. This means that even if the original work is in the public domain, taking a photograph of it is a new creative act, eligible for a new copyright. The difference comes from whether the jurisdiction applies the "sweat of the brow" doctrine for copyright. The U.S. does not -- the U.K. does. Any other jurisdiction that applies "sweat of the brow" is likely to similarly follow the U.K.'s lead on this.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2010 17:04
|
|
|
Stormtrooper posted:Thanks, this is exactly what I needed to know! I guess I have a sort of follow up question - being in the US, must I respect the UK copyright law with regard to these works (medieval manuscripts)? I know usually people in one country don't have to follow the laws in another, but I guess some of the international copyright agreements might negate this. Generally no, but it depends on what you are wanting to do with the work, and where you want to do it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2010 19:22
|
|
|
Suppin posted:Can I put a screenshot of Sprint's order page on my website to make a comment about it? Though fair use is never a 100% one-and-done kind of thing, you are probably on the OK side of it here. I'm assuming your website is a blog though, or some other informative, rather than commercial entity. If you are doing it for commercial purposes, however, you may be less safe.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2010 19:47
|
|
|
I don't see why they couldn't if your lease expressly agrees to the fines as penalties for violation of its provisions. -e- but regardless, you have to have agreed to the penalty somewhere, perhaps in some sort of document you initialed. Doesn't sound like you did that. Take it to small claims court, and start looking for a new place.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2010 02:36
|
|
|
Basically, in practical terms you want to substitute "Is he capable at any point of being semi-lucid" for "is he of sound mind". It's much closer to the actual question at hand.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2010 15:52
|
|
|
Javid posted:Could the use of antipsychotics be used to prove a preexisting mental issue? They'd have to prove the drugs themselves actually weren't working effectively, changing the issue from the drugs to the condition requiring their use. Not certain, as they could be prescribed offlabel for another condition. Also depending on the type of claim you are alleging, they might be barred from admissibility under the subsequent remedial measures rule.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2010 07:29
|
|
|
daveincognito posted:I've posted about my problem in a much earlier stage in a previous thread, but here I am now with another question. Let me just point out that it's not necessarily an unreasonably long time.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2010 07:31
|
|
|
joat mon posted:It's unlikely she is or you were an independent contractor. Biggest giveaway: an independent contractor doesn't have a 'boss.' It's a balancing test, and not always clear, but the factors involve things like "Do you work regular hours, do you report to a supervisor with hiring/firing authority, do you have an employee manual, do you pay taxes, are you eligible for benefits, do you report your hours, do you supply your own tools, is there someone with right to control your work, etc." IIRC the supreme court has given guidance that the taxes and benefits eligibility are the most important factors with others (hiring/firing authority, employee manual) having greater weight than others, but none are presumptive. The case involving the factors, CCNV v. Reid, is a good place to start -- even though it's a copyright/work-for-hire case, it's a clear distinction of the factors used in determining an employer/employee relationship. Leif. fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Jun 12, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2010 18:25
|
|
|
Before you do that, though, realize that you are not going to be successful attacking a servicemember for how they spend their BAH. It's not going to happen.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2010 16:42
|
|
|
MalConstant posted:If I have someone's SSN, how can I locate where they live at so I can file a small claims suit? If the lease is like most other leases, you are all jointly and severally liable for the entire remaining balance on the lease plus damages. This means the lessor can collect the entire amount from any of you. You still could sue the other guys to get reimbursed for paying their share, but regardless of whether you cause any of the damages, you probably violated the lease agreement, and that's all that matters.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2010 22:13
|
|
|
Femur posted:So I hired a contractor to install a sprinkler system. They installed it, but forgot to apply glue to a certain part, and so the thing bursts and destroys my ceiling. The Fire Marshall said the lack of glue on that part was the problem, and I have the part that wasn't installed correctly. So I have to replace the carpet, and rebuild the ceiling and a wall that was damaged due to this. The contractor's insurance, whom I have been dealing with, will only agree to pay me $500. The cost of repairs is closer to $20,000. They say this is because the contract I signed includes the two clause: It's jurisdiction dependent. In some places, you can waive a negligence claim; others you cannot waive a gross negligence claim, but mere negligence you can. Negligence may not be the only way of getting the money back though, depending on the text of the contract. Your lawyer would know better. -e- ^^^^^ What Solomon Grundy said about your insurance works too though, and probably saves you attorneys fees.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2010 03:57
|
|
|
Why would he have better luck in a thread about how to beat debt collection (where most answers seem to be by a non-lawyer), when the question is about what he should do in response to a court summons in the legal questions megathread (where we have consumer rights lawyers)?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2010 08:47
|
|
|
The simple question has a very simple answer. Tell the truth.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2010 18:34
|
|
|
Please don't give advice to people in this thread when you don't have any idea what you're talking about? Thanks.PoOKiE! posted:If it's the same judge from the arraignment then I'm sure something comical will happen regardless but I'm tempted to do that since most of my friends are serious drivers as well and participate in autocross events, etc. My best friend actually works on race cars and associates with a few fairly famous drivers in his free time. Since he's a designer/engineer, he would be able to attest to how well I maintain and upgrade my cars and the caution I constantly have towards driving.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2010 21:14
|
|
|
PoOKiE! posted:I have real world experience in Illinois doing the exact same thing Chuu posted, This isn't the "how to be a criminal" thread. This isn't also the "Police are evil people thread" like you seem to want it to be. This is the "legal questions" thread where people seek legal advice from people with some basis for having legal expertise, i.e. lawyers. You however, came into this thread and immediately rejected everything you were told, insisting that no matter what you were right and the police were idiots, despite the chorus of people who know a lot more about these sorts of things than you saying otherwise. So no, you really have no basis to be advising anyone about anything here. quote:What experience do you have on the matter? I haven't actually claimed any expertise in Illinois criminal law. I did, however graduate from law school, which makes me generally qualified to point out how much of an idiot you've been in this thread. Then again, unlike you I haven't had to make posts like this: quote:Recently I've been wondering what the basic rules of thumb are for a civil case in most places. or quote:I realize people might see this as whiny or not taking blame, but I assure you I have heard all the criticisms and doubt from family, friends, coworkers, etc, when I was deep into my first court case in Dec09. Please try to assume I am not a poo poo-head please. That took 2 posts into your post history; I didn't even have to go post by post and point out where you've given people lovely legal advice. Get the gently caress out, leave it to people with a semblance of what they're talking about. -e- And lol at you talking about how that offense can't qualify for expungement, when the section of statute you quoted specifically outlines several exceptions to the rule for how it CAN qualify for expungement. Leif. fucked around with this message at 02:35 on Jul 11, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2010 02:30
|
|
|
PoOKiE! posted:Correct. No, not correct. A disposition of traffic school supervision is NOT the same thing as offense not entered. The former will show up when you get a full driving record report done, which some jobs require you to do. The latter will not. This is why you shouldn't be posting here. Leif. fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Jul 11, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2010 15:59
|
|
|
You need to be careful and find out your local court (I'm assuming Cook County Circuit Court) rules on directed verdicts. In some jurisdictions there are very specific timing rules on when you can file them (or restrictions on what you can do before filing one), and in some jurisdictions, if you miss the opportunity, it's waived. Let me also point out you're not going to win on one either. The standard for a directed verdict in Illinois is as follows: A directed verdict is properly entered when all of the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the opponent, so overwhelmingly favors the movant that no contrary verdict based on that evidence could stand. Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern R.R. Co., 37 Ill. 2d 494, 510, 229 N.E.2d 504 (1967). The court has "no right" to enter a directed verdict if there is any evidence demonstrating a substantial factual dispute or where the assessment of the credibility of the witnesses or the determination regarding conflicting evidence is decisive to the outcome. Maple v. Gustafson, 151 Ill. 2d 445, 453-54, 177 Ill. Dec. 438, 603 N.E.2d 508 (1992). That standard is incredibly difficult for you to meet, and it almost never happens. Not saying you shouldn't file the motion, you should always file the motion, just saying you shouldn't waste your time expecting to win on that. -e- Also that witness testimony you're talking about presenting, if I'm understanding who is who correctly, is going to be inadmissible. But w/e we're not your attorneys, this is not advice for you to take, this is to point out that there might be a reason that your attorneys are ignoring certain routes because they simply aren't as fruitful or even possible as you think. Leif. fucked around with this message at 05:23 on Jul 12, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2010 05:19
|
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:He's actually right here though. There needs to be a reason other than 'crime control' for random stops and making a seizure in a bad neighborhood needs to be based upon something other than 'just doesn't fit in' (at least I think, my professor didn't really give us a case cite when he said it). Making a seizure in a bad neighborhood needs probable cause, but making a terry stop, however, doesn't (no matter what neighborhood - in fact, easier in a bad neighborhood to get mere suspicion). And if there's a valid pretext from a minor traffic violation, that's OK too. Also don't conflate crime control checkpoints (generally not OK), with orders to heavily patrol a specific area and pull over even for the most minimal violations or suspicions (much closer to OK).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2010 06:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 14:30 |
|
|
It's not dispositive in of itself, but it counts towards reasonable suspicion. Plus, there's all sorts of things the OP couldn't have known. Was a crime reported with a similar vehicle? Have there been a rash of drug deals in the area with nice cars, where they aren't normally? Did he have out of state (this is canada right? Province?) plates and the cop knew that most deals in this area are normally conducted in cars with out of state plates? etc. There's no way the OP can know these things at the time of the stop (or maybe even ever), but they factor into a reasonable suspicion/probable cause analysis. -e- also, IIRC the checkpoint thing just got relitigated in DC recently, so I don't know that the issue is entirely settled.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2010 14:32
|
|