|
Richard M Nixon posted:I'm interested to know how a court would handle a case that is really technical in nature. For example, if someone were caught producing malicious code and preforming exploits on a company, how would the judge handle hearing about proof that connections were made between IP x and Y, or a deep packet inspection proved that this bit string was being sent there? How would the jury (if there was one) be taught WTF a packet was and why people were taking a server in the back door? Would a civil suit (e.g. punitive damages from piracy) be different than a criminal suit (felony hacking)? In the UK there is a whole division of the courts system devoted to really, really hard, technical cases (the Chancery Division), as well as a specialist Technology and Construction Court for good measure. They will have specialist judges and slightly specialised procedures. (Of course, in the UK almost all civil cases are tried without a jury) By analogy, I wouldn't be surprised if the US has something similar. Controversially, in the UK there is a big debate about whether very, very technical criminal cases should also be heard without a jury (IIRC the first non-jury criminal trial since Ireland in the '80s is going on at the moment).
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2010 02:35
|
|
:iamafag:
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 23:30 |
|
|
Grumpy Paralegal posted:To continue with the situation above, the boss in question is now sending harassing text messages, late at night. Does this add anything to the situation? So, do you Yanks not have an equivalent to Wrongful Dismlssal, constructive dismissal and the implied term as to trust and confidence in employment contracts? (In the UK, most of the £££ in employment cases arises from claims in 'Unfair Dismissal': a statutory right not be fired in inequitable circumstances. There remains, however, the common law right to claim a breach of the employment contract, aka a claim for 'Wrongful Dismissal'. This also covers the situation where an employeee quits, but then argues that it was the employer who repudiated the employment contract (usually by an alleged breach of the implied contractual term not to act in such a manner as would undermine trust and confidence with the employee) and that the employee, by quitting, merely accepted this repudiation; because the employee was entitled to accept the repudiation and quit, he may claim that he was really 'constructively dismissed' and then sue the employer as if he had been expressly sacked from his job)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2010 01:27
|
|
|
Rohaq posted:My mom lives in New Zealand (I'm in the UK), and has been trying to get a protection order on her husband due to his abusive behaviour (shouting, threatening, generating load arguments, one time grabbed her by the throat, etc.). It went to court today and she didn't get the order; I think that this was essentially because the vast majority of the submitted evidence was that of his word against hers. I think that as there was no solid evidence submitted, and because a protection order would essentially evict him from the house it was thrown out. There may be domestic violence/battered woman charities in NZ that could give you mother more practical advice, and perhaps even provide her with McKenzie friend-style representation in court. I know in the UK there is the National Centre for Domestic Violence (NCDV); it may even be worthwhile ringing them or sending them an email to ask if they know of any similar charities in NZ. edit: MissConduct posted:I learned that the state of Louisiana recognizes something called "Defamation Per Se" which means: Interestingly, these are the same four types of slander that are actionable without proof of damages under English common law. Although, according to my old Tort textbook, no-one has been sued under (i), (ii) or (iv) for over 100 years, and the last case under (iii) appears to have been in the 1940s. But maybe the courts will be happier to let you sue for slander per se in Louisiana. That would at least cut down on all those glove slaps and pistol duels. dogbox fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Mar 6, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2010 18:00
|
|