|
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. This. Once you factor in the filing fees and the time you will spend fighting this, $175 hardly seems worth it. Next time, don't use a vendor service that allows take-backs.
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2010 01:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 12:43 |
|
|
TheBestDeception posted:Maybe, Mr. Solomon Grundy, ODC wants justice, even if said justice might come at a price to him. Isn't that worth fighting for? But the OP's question was "Do I have any options that don't entail spending more money than the $175 I'm owed?" And unless the filing fees are uncommonly low in the court that would hear the case, the answer is "No."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2010 03:11
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:If "on" is not an option, guess which one you're expected to do?  Some of these questions... honestly.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2010 14:25
|
|
|
Nell posted:I was just pulled over for speeding on the border of the town I live in. I was given a "Code and Ordinance Violation Notice" instead of a ticket. On the "ticket" it says fine$: TBD... Can I get a "ticket" with a to be determined fine for going 10mph over the speed limit? What town is this? What is the ordinance the violation cites?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2010 00:09
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:I call them giblets. Ha! I thought I was the only one...
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2010 01:50
|
|
|
PoOKiE! posted:If I have photographic proof of the officer in question following other cars literally a few feet from their bumper, do you think it will be a pretty obvious dismissal since he obviously would not be a good person to have an opinion of what a reasonable distance is? Hahaha, no. But:  PoOKiE! posted:If a person doesn't know specifically what he is charged with until a jury decides what they think is "reasonable and prudent" as far as following distance goes, that proves the law is unconstitutionally vague. People in identical situations would get completely opposite outcomes just because the jury was a different mix of people. 1. No judge anywhere is going to strike down a common sense traffic law as "unconstitutionally vague." 2. Setting aside the insanity of a hypothetical in which you actually had a jury trial for this, you know what the offense was. You wouldn't be waiting on a jury for that. What you would be hoping is to convince a jury of your peers--other drivers--that you were not riding someone's rear end. No one likes a tailgater, so good luck with that. 3. I actually kind of want you to go to court and argue that "no reasonable person follows the general 2-second rule." Please report back with results. Wyatt fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Jul 9, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2010 19:05
|
|
|
ZeldaLeft posted:Noted, but this is Pittsburgh, and it's at a bar. The cops will laugh at me and do nothing, and even if they remove him from the bar, he'll just come back some other time, we kinda run in the same social circle. I am tired of people who want a legal solution but don't want to involve law enforcement officers. Who do you think would be showing up to enforce your hypothetical restraining order? What this guy is doing is, under PA law, harassment. It is illegal and he can go to jail for it. If it actually escalates to physical violence (or the belief on your part that such violence is imminent), then it's assault. This is illegal and he can go to jail for it. Call the police and press charges.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2010 23:45
|
|
|
ZeldaLeft posted:they claim that what is happening is harassment, and all they will do is slap him on the wrist, at which point he will likely come back with more venom. So one of three things happens: 1. He thinks it's hilarious that you called the cops and he carries on. So you continue to involve the police. A pattern of harassment will emerge that will necessitate something more than a slap on the wrist. 2. He will be angry that the cops got involved and will actually attack you. This will expose him to more significant punishment. 3. He gets the point and goes away. All three options are a path towards resolution. ZeldaLeft posted:i dont think i have a pro-bono legal hookup, and it seems asinine that i cant find a solution to this that doesnt involve money/violence Our of curiosity, is there a reason you can't simply avoid the guy? You live in a big city.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2010 19:53
|
|
|
Mackay posted:I don't want to encourage him to do anything that I think he would consider dishonourable or dishonest. Non-legal opinion What is more honorable: expecting the friend who caused the injury to help, or finding a way to hold the club liable? The club did not cause this injury, the drunken idiot did. I understand not wanting to sue a friend, but sometimes you have to hold people accountable for their stupidity. Legal opinion (US at least) The club would just haul the friend into court and say, "Extract any judgment against us from this guy." And they'd be right.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2010 18:31
|
|
|
Y-Hat posted:Does Sherrod have a case against Breitbart or not? I know some of the basics of defamation law ("actual malice" and how a public figure is legally different than a private figure), and from that I figure that it should go in her favor, but I want to know from someone who actually knows the nuances of that area of the law. This could be a pretty interesting case because Breitbart did not doctor the footage, by which I mean he did not cut and splice the footage to make it appear she said something she did not. What he did was show her exact words, but without the full context. So I don't think she has a strong defamation case. She has a stronger false light claim, though even that is not a slam dunk.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2010 05:45
|
|
|
baquerd posted:I found out the fence's owner is a lawyer himself... The ancillary to SWATJester's rule: definitely don't hit a lawyer's poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2010 17:49
|
|
|
Lawyers, please. We have enough non-lawyers giving nonsensical advice on this thread. Let's not turn on one another!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2010 19:34
|
|
|
baquerd posted:GENERAL HILARITY Be sure to keep a signed (and notarized!) copy in your lock box at the bank.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2010 20:32
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:So, Trying to parse this... so you're saying that (1) you were laid off, and (2) some people who work where you used to work, (3) at some time other than while at work, (4) tell people you were fired? Who cares? Unless they're somehow sabotaging your attempts to find gainful employment, why even get worked up about it? Regardless, what you're looking at is a defamation suit, slander to be precise. As for how much you'd sue for, the fact that you don't have an identifiable amount in mind suggests you haven't really been harmed by their comments. I gather that this upsets you for some reason, but you aren't going to get very far simply claiming "emotional harm." If you could prove that you suffered economic losses (see above comment about loss of work opportunity) then you might have something to work with.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2010 20:25
|
|
|
Loopyface posted:If it's wreck-less, there shouldn't be a problem. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2010 15:28
|
|
|
cucka posted:I'm kind of worried about people either taking half ideas I put out in public domain... Things don't automatically go "in public domain." If you create something, you automatically have copyrights to that creation. However, if you want to take someone to court, that copyright has to be registered. And it really is cheap, as S. Grundy pointed out. To make your life easy, finish the creation, register the copyright, then do your viral marketing.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2010 15:00
|
|
|
cucka posted:Facebook's ToS relating to works hosted on their site (I can't remember the specifics, but essentially they can claim your work for their own purposes if it's hosted on their site was how I interpreted it) basically put a fear in me... From the Facebook Terms of Service: Facebook ToS posted:For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos ("IP content"), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook ("IP License"). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it. Basically, you give them license to post your IP (as you've explicitly asked them to post it by uploading it) and for other users to share it. That last little bit about other users is covering their butt, since it's realistically difficult for them to track down all the instances of an IP and delete it. Personally, I wouldn't use Facebook for this, as they have a history of changing their terms in questionable ways. I think you'd be better off posting material to a domain you own (where you have absolute control over the material), and using Facebook for whatever viral stuff you have in mind. I just don't think I'd post anything to Facebook that I was seriously worried about controlling/protecting. If you're determined to use Facebook, be explicit about the copyright protections you are asserting. There is wide-spread misunderstanding about copyright, especially among younger users on social networking sites. Somehow people have gotten the idea that you can steal anything as long as you "claim fair use." This is, of course, not how fair use works at all.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2010 19:59
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Wasn't sure whether to post this here or in the small questions thread, but it deals with the finer points of social security law, so anyways, Taking this info at face value, you were eligible for benefits until you finished high school. You wouldn't be eligible for anything at this point. If you have any questions, you should call the survivor benefits hotline: 1-800-772-1213. You'll get a more definitive answer than you will here.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2010 20:22
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:I've been developing work under a mark since 2008, I was going to file a trademark for it but it looks like someone has very recently decided to adopt a very similar name. By sheer luck, they are also in the same metro area. What is "very similar"? If you can show that you have been actively using the mark in open trade, then registering the trademark would be the simplest legal recourse. That will enable you to stop anyone else from using the mark.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2010 22:11
|
|
|
probably drunk posted:I "hired" on a contractor with no signatures, completely verbal... he completely blows everyone off... DJ Sizzle posted:My girlfriend loaned her ex boyfriend $8000 dollars... She unfortunately trusted this guy... Let both of these stand as examples of why you get it in writing. If you aren't comfortable forcing friends to sign contracts, don't do business deals with your friends.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2010 14:20
|
|
|
Solomon Grundy posted:Move out, take the dog. There are likely no custody rights in an animal. In my state, it is treated like a piece of personal property. Let her try to figure out how to get the dog back from you. Worst-case scenario, she sues you in small claims court for conversion of the dog, and you owe her the fair market value of the dog. I concur, as you have made the more significant financial investment. Let her deal with the hassle of making a court issue of it, if that's the route she wants to go. After some time away from the dog, and after seeing how much it costs to take someone to court, she might decide she doesn't care as much as she thinks she does now.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2010 16:41
|
|
|
catchers posted:What does "fully earned" mean? Does this lawyer keep all of the money if it is unused? The last line says that unused money will be refunded, but I am confused about the lines that say the money is fully earned. This is in California Think of it as a non-refundable deposit. You pay some money up front to retain the services of the lawyer at some later date. The "fully earned" language simply means that, in the event you don't ever use the lawyer's service, you do not get to demand the return of that money on the grounds that the lawyer never did any work for you.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2010 18:47
|
|
|
catchers posted:What if he does $5k worth of work and I paid $15k, will I be able to get $10k back? 1. You pay a one-time, non-refundable fee. This is the retainer and you will never see this again. 2. You then make deposits to the general account. The lawyer's hourly rate is billed against this account. So supposing you paid him $15k as part of Step #2, but he only billed $5k, then you get the other $10k back. It's really very simple. You are paying in advance for work that the lawyer may do, but are entitled to a refund of the amount you overpaid.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2010 19:07
|
|
|
Solomon Grundy posted:Wyatt, I don't read the language as requiring the attorney to issue a refund of the "fully earned" portion of the retainer, just future deposits. These types of retainer agreements are prohibited by the ethical rules of my state, for what it is worth. Yep. As I said above, the retainer is being treated as fully earned and cannot be recovered. Only deposits unaccounted for are refundable.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2010 19:45
|
|
|
TheUnforgiven posted:IP question about use of "logo for a faction in a video game, the logo of a superhero, or artwork based off of games." There is, of course, a complicated answer to this. But the quick and dirty version is this: copyright covers original works (books, song, movies, etc.) and trademark covers marks (typically logos and stylized writing) used in trade. The things you are talking about are most likely covered under trademark law. The Superman logo, for instance, is a registered trademark. So, too, is the symbol the rebels use in the Star Wars universe. Et cetera. If you are curious about whether a mark is registered, you can use the USPTO Search. Do note, however, that even if it's not registered, that does not mean it is not protected by law. As for how that impacts your business model, it really is complicated and you should consult an attorney in the field. I hope your model goes beyond printing up shirts adorned with the Weighted Companion Cube.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2010 17:11
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Any way of preventing this from happening other than being richer and whiter? Driving the speed limit would be a start. Don't give cops a reason to pull you over. (In this case, the driver was bound to get pulled over because of the out-of-state temp plates. They are indeed easy to forge, and are a popular means of concealing a stolen car.)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2010 15:51
|
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:What if in theory they actually did find something? Could that evidence be thrown out fairly easily in court during a criminal trial? Compared to a civil suit which (i think) you are referring to? That all depends on what reasonable suspicion the officer articulates for calling in the K-9 unit. Refusal to consent to a search is not, in itself, grounds to execute a search.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2010 18:16
|
|
|
nm posted:Jesus christ, how old are you? I was wondering that myself. Futurama isn't that old.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2010 20:01
|
|
|
Residency Evil posted:The Law School thread brought up an interesting point about being stopped by the police and being asked to submit to a search. Is the answer to this question always "No thanks?" If I say No, what happens? Well, that depends. You can say "I don't consent to any searches." This does not, however, mean they cannot search your vehicle. It simply means they have to have a reasonable suspicion for doing so. If you have contraband in your car, by all means, refuse consent. No point making it easier for the police. As for what to do if you have done nothing wrong, that's really a personal preference. Some people will simply consent to a search so they can get it over with and go about their day. Other people will go full tilt "I HAVE RIGHTS" just to make a point. Nothing wrong with this approach, if you have time to kill.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2010 13:59
|
|
|
Anjow posted:I don't think you understand the concept of hypothetical questions. Do you think lawyers learn how to defend their clients by going to law school to get told 'never murder anyone and you'll be fine'? If I'd asked "is diminished responsibility a defence for homicide" would you have told me never to stab anyone and I won't end up in that situation? If I had a client who posed their question in the same form as your original (i.e. "I fancy stabbing someone, is that okay?") I would indeed tell them "Never stab anyone." Your question was whether it was okay to "[get] hammered and [drive] around in a car park." And the answer was "No."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2010 00:02
|
|
|
Robo Olga posted:Good grief. I hope part of your plan includes finding a new place to live. Their emails are classic rear end-covering, now that you've threatened legal action. As for the dogs, you either need to schedule an appointment with your landlord at a time when you can be there to tend to the animals, or arrange to take the dogs somewhere else while they are working.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2010 16:49
|
|
|
chesh posted:My sister-in-law wants to separate from my brother, as she should, because he's an rear end in a top hat. Awesome sentence. That is all.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2010 20:35
|
|
|
hella cool posted:Is it lawful for an officer to write a ticket for an incident he did not see? No, people only get in trouble for crimes they commit in sight of the police. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2010 16:31
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Really, when I got charged with passing a school bus, I called up, gave them my fax and got everything with-in two minutes. ... PoOKiE!?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2010 21:43
|
|
|
Zealous Abattoir posted:Can someone explain to me whats up with due process and how it affects how private colleges work with their students? I mean, I tried to read up upon the subject last night to understand her argument, but either I really am dumb (which I probably am) or she is talking out of her rear end. She is talking out of her rear end.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2010 17:30
|
|
|
Zodijackylite posted:I was unable to find any reason to increase fine... The amount of the fine you actually pay will often exceed the statutory fine amount, owing to various extra fees. For Connecticut, those fees are outlined in the Violations and Infractions Schedule [PDF]. You will note that a violation of Sec. 14-36 will cost you $158, and a violation of Sec. 14-92 will cost you $92.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2011 18:45
|
|
|
Zodijackylite posted:Also, are the two incorrect dates on the ticket worth mentioning in court? No. You broke the law, and a clerical error doesn't change that. Besides, arguing "the cop did a lovely job" doesn't get you very far with judges. But you might get some mileage out of pointing out that you were keeping a drunk off the roads.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2011 05:11
|
|
|
ChubbyEmoBabe posted:Care to point out how what I said was insane? "I would imagine..." followed by "IANAL." Maximusi posted:I have a legal question involving a car accident. I live in the bay area in California and this occurred on the Dumbarton bridge. I was in the middle lane. There was a red ford dodge parked on the fast lane because they had no gas, car behind him realizes he's about to smash into parked car, swerves into my lane, I'm forced to swerve into the wall (the bridge had no shoulders on either side). I lose control of the car but no one hits me. My question is: could I potentially get the parked car to pay for damages on my car, or at least pay for the towing? I feel like they were pretty reckless and stupid to get on a bridge with no gas and on top of that, park it on the fast lane. Man, that sucks. For what it's worth, being parked on a bridge is indeed not allowed (Section 22500 of the California Vehicle Code). As for how that translates to you getting money based on his stupidity, that's more complicated. Have you filed an insurance claim? Your adjuster could tell you what they will and will not cover. 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). What was your financial loss in all this? How badly was the car damaged? Just curious. Wyatt fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Jan 27, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2011 18:56
|
|
|
ChubbyEmoBabe posted:lol, whatever. So I wasn't necessarily wrong, I just didn't word things as absolute and disclosed my opinion was not legal advice? Sounds crrrrrazy. It's the fact that you are guessing about legal issues when you have no legal training, in a thread full of actual licensed lawyers.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2011 19:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 12:43 |
|
|
TheBestDeception posted: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. Yeah I'll be interested to see it in action. I have a feeling this is a result of multi-car pileups, which we seem to have a lot of during the winter. And it'll be 10 cars all tangled together because of some yahoo who doesn't even get hit and continues on their merry way.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2011 19:34
|
|