|
some texas redneck posted:Dude in a car That would be a private investigator the insurance company's attorneys hired to take pictures of any activity that would suggest there's no actual injury.
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2011 02:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 08:19 |
|
|
Holy Diver posted:Wouldn't a strict "loser pays" system address both of these problems by reducing the financial commitment required to file legitimate lawsuits while also discouraging frivolous long shot cases? Three bad side effects from that: 1. Fewer settlements. Why settle if there's the chance that all your legal bills will be paid by the other side? 2. More gouging/inefficiency. Many legitimate attorneys pare down the bills that they issue to clients as a courtesy, in an attempt to provide a more reasonable amount. If they know the other side is probably footing the bill, why not engage in lengthy, pointless discovery to run up that tab? 3. Increase in bankruptcies and/or penniless plaintiffs. Want to screw with the other side? How about leaving them with a completely uncollectable judgment against someone who won't be able to pay their rent, much less the legal fees on top of whatever the other side happens to win? Some firms would probably come up with a deposit system to be used in case of uncollectable amounts that would just do an end-around your proposed system. Other not-quite-good but not-quite-bad side effect: lawyers get more money. Edit: There have been many attempts to compare the American system to the English system, and this article does a better job than my half-assed attempt to explain the positives and negatives - http://www.wcl.american.edu/journal/lawrev/35/toran.pdf Abugadu fucked around with this message at 05:25 on Mar 14, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2011 05:16
|
|
|
NarwhalParty posted:I just purchased renter's insurance but there is no information on any precautions I should take if I ever need to process a claim. I don't have any receipts for any of my belongings, so should I take pictures or write down serial numbers of my electronics just in case? Yes. Both. Edit: And hang on to any receipts if you have them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2011 06:53
|
|
|
Anjow posted:Copyright question, not specifically for any country since it's just out of interest. Probably wouldn't be OK under the Berne Convention, to which Saudi Arabia is a signatory. They're obligated to provide the same protections to other country's works as they give to their own, so assuming they have basic protections for films, it'd probably be illegal. As to permission, it would largely depend on the wording of the license/agreement. Courts tend to give a lot of leeway to companies negotiating copyright licenses. Without specification on the quality of the film, the airline might be able to get away with showing a crappy pirated copy, though I don't know why they would if they got a legitimate license. If the film quality were too crappy, though, or the film was altered, the licensor may have an action against the airline (see, e.g., Monty Python successfully suing CBS (I think) for the heavily-altered-and-no-longer-funny US versions of their Flying Circuses).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2011 07:31
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:ABC, and that part was decided under trademark, not copyright. quote:We therefore conclude that there is a substantial likelihood that, after a full trial, appellants will succeed in proving infringement of their copyright by ABC's broadcast of edited versions of Monty Python programs. In reaching this conclusion, however, we need not accept appellants' assertion that any editing whatsoever would constitute infringement. Courts have recognized that licensees are entitled to some small degree of latitude in arranging the licensed work for presentation to the public in a manner consistent with the licensee's style or standards. Concurrence posted:In the present case, we are holding that the deletion of portions of the recorded tape constitutes a breach of contract, as well as an infringement of a common-law copyright of the original work. The Lanham Act/moral rights stuff at the end was not the holding of the case, even though it was what made the case famous.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2011 01:01
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:I don't think "lovely rip" constitutes editing per Gilliam. I would disagree. Any version of the movie "Killers" copied via handicam complete with the silhouettes of the backs of people's heads, people coughing, babies crying, and at least one audience member giving a 'oh no you didnt' would likely improve the movie so substantially that it would be entirely different from the shitshow that is the original movie.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2011 01:26
|
|
|
Cheesetits posted:...US territory... because it is technically a different country with a different legal system... you might have to come a little more specific with a location, as all US territories are part of the US and use the US legal system, unless you're considering Iraq as a US territory.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2011 00:30
|
|
|
I'm not barred in Texas, and Texas can have some freaky rear end laws regarding criminal poo poo, so this is generic advice rather than a legal opinion/advice. You'll need to get a TX lawyer for the actual answer: Like nm said, if it's an actual US territory, he's probably hosed. If it's a foreign country, he might be ok. In Small v. United States, 544 U.S. 385 (2005), which was a case involving a guy with a foreign conviction checking the 'no' box when applying for a domestic gun permit, the US Supreme Court said Congress generally legislates with domestic concerns in mind, and they adopted a presumption that Congress ordinarily intends its statutes to have domestic, not extraterritorial application. The Court noted that foreign penal convictions differed from domestic penal convictions in many ways, thereby creating an inconsistency in the American notion of fairness. Hence, the Court held that the phrase "convicted in any court" referred only to domestic courts and not to foreign courts. HOWEVER this decision has been under legislative attack, both on the state and federal level. I cannot stress enough to get an opinion from an attorney barred in Texas if that's where he's applying, it's worth the extra effort to avoid any potential problems down the road.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2011 02:06
|
|
|
Cheesetits posted:Yes, it is defiantly a US territory, and not Irag (or Guam for the record). From what he has said, when he signed his plea deal his lawyer there told him not to worry about it, and it wouldn't matter back in the states. The probation people over there also told him his probation is limited to the island, and would only be in effect if he returned sometime in the next three years. But then again it is a pretty hosed up place, which is why he was looking for some kind of confirmation. Yeah, my best guess as to what the lawyers/probation officers there meant was that their systems probably aren't currently linked in to a federal database, so it might not pop up automatically if he got busted in the states or if someone did a simple online search. That said, if that's the case, these offices tend to get federal money for upgrades every few years, and at some point down the road, it's highly likely that they will be linked in, and that the conviction would pop up on a routine background check. And like nm said, if it's a false declaration under oath, there's possible criminal/perjury charges.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2011 06:47
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:Before the Cops on the Beat thread was closed in D&D, there were occasional absurd stories posted that related to this, where cops would gently caress some poo poo up and then the PD/city/state would say to the victim, "You're SOL, we have immunity." Here is one case, for example, and the article includes a (very) brief description of the origin of sovereign immunity. This is not an absolute thing, though, since if the cop goes way out of bounds you can go after him in a civil suit under Title 42 USC sec. 1983. http://familyrightsassociation.com/info/law/title42sec1983/ They're not the easiest cases to pursue, because there's a lot of quirks and loopholes to the law, but I've seen them happen.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2011 01:35
|
|
|
hatelull posted:Short Time Listener, First Time Caller. My name is hatelull and I have a question about Divorce/Custody agreements in the state of Texas. I'm not licensed in Texas, but I do child support work and I'm fairly certain that no state allows retroactive modification, based on federal law. They may come in and file a motion for modification that would be effective as of the date of filing, but they can't go back and alter anything before that, unless the previous order stated on its face that it was temporary (which you'd probably know if it did because it would have been set for a hearing for a permanent amount). And again, no idea if this is applicable in Texas, but there's usually something that allows a state to review the amount after 3 years time to see if a modification is warranted. Edit: adding footnotes for your research: 42 U.S.C.§ 666(a)(9) (1994, Supp. IV 1998, & Supp. 1999); 45 C.F.R. § 302.70(a)(9) (2000). http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2002/reports/essentials/c11.html
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2011 04:51
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:I understand the burden is lower for civil suits versus criminal charges, but wouldn't the retailers have to demonstrate some sort of loss in order to collect damages? I can understand if you see someone stick something in their purse or their pocket, but if someone forgets something on the bottom of their cart or something similar, shouldn't the retailer have to show some sort of intent if the person brings it right back when it's brought to their attention? If you carve out an exception for the bottom-of-the-cart excuse, you're going to have a ton of people using that as a shield, despite their intentions. And while employees do huge amounts of retail theft, that doesn't justify any change in punishment to shoplifters. Look at the 'secrets of your job' thread, most stores have policies where they're not allowed to even touch someone who's shoplifting, and they get hammered. On the other hand, these statutes disturb me because they're written as if what's being done is an alternative to prosecution, when instead they have no criminal protection written in. You could pay the civil request and then still be on the hook for retail theft, if the government has the resources to go after you. And the 'attorney's fees to be heaped on top in case of trial victory for plaintiff' without an equal section for the defendant is a green light for abuse of the process, which the WSJ article describes in detail. But of course, you don't get anyone opposing these bills, for fear of being labeled in favor of 'shoplifter's rights', so you get this heavy handed poo poo. There's a happy medium to be had, but this isn't it. Edit: Also this seems like something lawyers in my jurisdiction would fap to if they knew about it, it sounds like extremely easy billing.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2011 07:47
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:At least if they pressed charges, you could take it to trial and they'd have to provide more proof, right? Somewhat more proof, but in a civil case, they'd only have to show that it was more likely than not that you shoplifted, a 'preponderance of the evidence'. This means over a 50/50 chance. Whereas in a criminal proceeding, the state has to show that you're guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, a much higher standard. I accept that torts like conversion or trespass to chattels have potential for punitive damages. To me, the over-the-line part is the state passing laws to greatly tip the balance in favor of the stores, especially with the attorney's fees provisions. It's creating a situation where people do the civil equivalent of Alford pleas, paying out the settlement because they're risk averse and the possibility of being on the hook for massive amounts of attorney's fees dissuades them from going for a fair trial.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2011 02:30
|
|
|
By 'redact' he means erase it entirely, re-framing the question in a way that isn't a flat out admission of guilt that could potentially be found by a prosecutor and used against you.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2011 05:22
|
|
|
Lieutenant Dan posted:Hello lawgoons! I'm in a kind of legal pickle and could use some advice. I'm not barred in Nevada, but a lot of people in your situation might file the lawsuit now, and use the 'discovery' process of the lawsuit to demand the medical records that they won't turn over. Edit: for more clarification, I'd recommend seeing a Nevada personal injury or med malpractice attorney, and explaining the situation, because it sounds like the clock is running rather quickly on potential claims you may have.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2011 07:04
|
|
|
Nero posted:My girlfriend was in a car accident about a month ago and the other party is alleging that she is responsible for significant injuries, far above the amount my girlfriend's insurance would cover. We were planning on getting married this month. If we get married and then she gets sued and loses, can I be held liable for these damages as her husband? We live in Missouri and the accident occurred in California. I'm not licensed in either of your jurisdictions so this isn't legal advice, just a personal opinion. The term you're looking for is 'community debt', and in general it would have to be incurred during the marriage in order for your assets to be at risk, and her actions must have been for the benefit of the community or for family purpose. So while it's unlikely, you may want to look into doing a prenuptual agreement as to covering your assets, and you'll probably want to get an attorney in whatever jurisdiction the case is being filed. Also, to give you a sliver of hope, your insurance company has a duty to defend, which means that they'll also have an attorney on her behalf (though they'll send you a letter saying you'll want to get one for yourself), and they'll be pressured to settle for the policy limits. When I worked insurance cases, it was extremely rare for someone to pursue the case past the policy limit.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2011 01:36
|
|
|
Medical Sword posted:can you talk yourself into legal liability for something? For example, I was thinking about josh hamilton (the baseball player who killed a guy by throwing him a ball as a souvenir, if you didn't know). Obviously it was an accident, but if he swore up and down he was actually trying to kill the guy, would it be possible to arrest + convict him, assuming he maintains his intention to kill the fan during his trial? would the case even make it to trial? In general, yes you could talk yourself into bigger problems. The US crim system is set up with roughly 4 types of mental states for crimes, each with correspondingly greater penalties, stretching from being criminally negligent to premeditating/committing intentional acts. So for example, the worker who accidentally leaves an open manhole that someone falls in would not be punished as badly as someone who intentionally comes over, opens the manhole, and tries to conceal the opening from sight, despite the fact that the end result (someone falling in and dying) is the same. With the Hamilton case, if you start with the hypothetical that Hamilton intended to cause the fan's death by throwing it short, and claimed to have done so, (and was not found insane/incompetent), it may still be difficult to convict because of the grey area around whether Hamilton caused the death. So Hamilton intends to kill the fan, and the fan dies, but does a poorly-thrown ball that tempts the fan to overreach and fall have enough of a causal connection? There might be an arrest, based on public outrage alone, but probably not enough of a connection to convict, as it might be a tough sell to a jury to say that it was forseeable that a poorly-thrown ball would cause the fan's death. U.S. law is incredibly murky on this point, as there are competing doctrines: first, negligence of the victim is not supposed to be used to excuse the conduct of the defendant. However, if the actions of the victim break the chain of causation, it may relieve the defendant of liability. Confused? Good. Hamilton might, in your hypothetical, be subject to a civil suit, though, as the standard to be proven is less. In tort law, the foreseeability test requires only that the general type of harm suffered by the victim was reasonably foreseeable, in the sense that the harm was the same as or similar to the type of harm that the defendant’s conduct unreasonably risked. The particular specific manner in which the harm occurred does not have to be foreseeable. In contrast, in criminal law, the foreseeability test is more exacting, requiring that the specific manner in which the harm occurred must be reasonably foreseeable. So the case might make it to trial, but the prosecutor would have to convince the jury that it was reasonably foreseeable that the fan would fall over the railing to grab a poorly-thrown ball. Given how little that happens, I would predict an acquittal.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2011 05:55
|
|
|
Super Delegate posted:On my return trip from Germany to the USA, Delta airlines canceled my flight due to a non functioning starter motor. It looks like the European Union's Regulation 261/2004 entitles me to 600 euro as compensation. Delta has the regulation posted on their website as well. I'm not barred in CT, this isn't legal advice, etc. While it looks on the surface like it's a goddamn slam dunk, since it would be obvious to anyone with a multicellular structure that they hosed up, I can see how they might respond to a small claims suit. My guess would be multiple motions intended to drag poo poo out, motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, which they'll lose but don't care, motion to remove to the regular court, expert witnesses, etc. They'd have a decent amount to lose if they actually followed the law, so they'll try everything they can to fight you. So while you'd probably eventually win, unless they somehow convince the court that it's your burden to show that the particular type of engine trouble was not extraordinary and in which case you'd need to get an expert to testify on your behalf which will cost you butt-tons of money, they're going to make it as painful as possible, so be prepared for that. Summary: you're likely right, they're wrong, but they have the money, ability, drive and lovely justice system to make sure that you're going to bleed every step of the way and probably end up paying more than you recover, not because they hate you but because it would set a bad precedent that would probably bankrupt them if followed in good faith. Unless you happen to have connections in the media who would publicize the poo poo out of this.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2011 04:08
|
|
|
Super Delegate posted:Do you know why small claims court would have jurisdiction? I think Delta would rather settle before the court date than pay lawyers to fight this. Depends on the state, but small claims court usually has jurisdiction if the amount being sought is under a certain amount, i.e. $10000 or so, and if there's personal jurisdiction. In my experience, big companies will usually fight these, because they believe that if they settle one, word will get out and there will be a flood of claims. I'm sure there are some out there that would settle, but I haven't worked for one.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2011 02:04
|
|
|
goku chewbacca posted:Questions about past due child support. There's a lot going on here, and I'm poo poo on the subject of trusts, so I'll just address the child support part of it. 1. Is the case a Georgia case, a Pennsylvania case, or one that was initiated in Pennsylvania and attempted to be enforced upon in Georgia? I say this because since you're all over age, it seems like there might be a statute of limitations problem. I'm not barred in either jurisdiction, so this is not legal advice and I advise you to check with a local lawyer, but it looks like Georgia doesn't have a SoL, and Pennsylvania has one of the shittiest ones in the 50 states, 6 years from the date of each installment. Under UIFSA, the US Code act that determines how interstate cases work, the applicable statute of limitations is the one that sucks the most. 2. Is there an order for child support on the case? 3. Dad's never been served anything on the case? 4. Usually your local child support office can help, I would go in and explain the situation, they may have info on the history of the case. 5. Basic stuff, before you get a lien you would need to get a judgment. You'd need the child support court to get you a judgment on the arrears, and that may be contingent on multiple things, such as serving Dad, having an order on the case, and the statute of limitations issue.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2011 01:18
|
|
|
Marxist Socialite posted:Just to be clear, I don't actually know the person. She's a friend of a friend, my friend told me about it but refused to do anything about it because she doesn't think it's actually illegal. That's another problem is that I'm not even sure who I would report it to. I'd guess that the friend of a friend is incredibly desensitized to death, given the close working proximity. Perhaps point out to your friend that if the pic ever got back to a relative of the deceased, there might be some hurt feelings. Or just let it go, since it's not really something that will bring the community to its knees, unless they dressed the dead body up in like a clown costume or are doing some sort of zombie reenactment with it, in which case, you should post the pic.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2011 05:26
|
|
|
935 posted:Lets say you get a ticket for reckless driving. Within days you're flooded with fliers from law firms begging to represent you for a small fee (typically ~$500) and claim that 90% of their clients get their charge reduced. They'll even appear in court for you so you can stay in bed! 1. Listed on the ticket which becomes public info 2. Will meet with prosecuting atty, say 'hey can I get this reduced to a Speeding w/ x points? Also are we still on for BW3 at lunch?' 3. You are not on for BW3 at lunch w/ prosecutor. 4. 'hey can I get this reckless reduced, even though Mr. Client has had 13 recklesses this year?' 'No.'
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2012 05:46
|
|
|
nm posted:As a prosecutor, or former prosecutor (I'm not exactly sure what child support counts as), would you have lunch with a traffic attorney? Here, any contested tickets with legal representation requires notice to the prosecution division prior to trial. I learned this includes being an attorney yourself and just contesting your own ticket, according to the former traffic referee who had some interesting opinions. Also, as a child support attorney, I'm no longer a prosecutor, I'm a persecutor.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2012 06:51
|
|
|
nm posted:People care more about not paying child support than jail or children, T/F? Not entirely. I'd say 70% of my cases have decent effort on the part of the non-custodial parent, 25% don't care about anything, and 5% are actively trying to do anything they can to make the other parent's life hell, even if it means jail time or loving up their kids' lives.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2012 02:49
|
|
|
SlenderWhore posted:(Disclaimer: I have liver problems so I've never actually drank before) In some states, you're already arrested for DUI by the time the breathalyzer issue comes up, even if you subsequently blow a 0.00% (though that result would probably help getting the charge dismissed). Failing the breathalyzer is an additional DUI charge with the separate element of driving with a BAC over .whatever%, so no real need to rack up a second misdemeanor for no reason. Second, breathalyzer accuracy issues. The jury is probably going to treat the % like it was issued from God, despite a host of problems that could have arisen. I worked in a jurisdiction where they hadn't run diagnostics on one of their machines in a 3 year stretch from 2004-2006. That, combined with the wildly varying results you get given your particular body weight, metabolism, etc. can mean that you could feel completely sober and still blow over .08, or feel rip roaring drunk and blow under. They have little charts to show how many drinks/hour gets you where at what weight, but I have yet to see anyone with it on their person out at a bar, along with a stopwatch. Third, the administrative penalties for refusal are usually less than what criminal charges you'd get for failing (nm's jurisdiction I think is an exception to the norm), so it's a hedge bet for those that are risk-adverse arrestees.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2012 06:28
|
|
|
Dudebro posted:I don't think it's scire. It was in the context of "if they accept your legal siri in the case, then...." or "the siri of the case seems to be...." Most likely a mispronunciation of theory. Was the speaker German? Also, anyone who tells you how a Latin word should be pronounced is talking out of their rear end. All sorts of differences between classical/Romanticized Latin pronunciation, and just because Black's Law settled on one given way doesn't make it correct. Per exemplum: http://sobek.colorado.edu/~mciverj/WP_Certiorari_120301.html
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2012 02:13
|
|
|
BirdOfPlay posted:A law question I've been itching to ask about DUI/DWI's. And before anyone asks: Regarding the first part of this post, as I think the second part got answered sufficiently, I know that many of the states I've researched for a motion regarding Miranda defenses to non-Mirandized police interrogation in the context of a DUI will decide the issue on whether or not the evidence received is 'testimonial'. What this means is, asking you questions that you provide a verbal response to, such as reciting the alphabet, etc., may (but not necessarily) violate the Miranda protection, as it is eliciting a testimonial response, as the government will attempt to use your answer against you. So the police will usually avoid those types of tests, and instead do SFSTs, Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, which are not question/answer, but rather Physical Challenges, such as a Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test, the walk-the-straight-line test, and balancing tests, which do not involve verbal responses and so in theory are 'non-testimonial' under the Miranda analysis.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2012 06:59
|
|
|
May want to throw in there that the company has (1) the duty to fairly and promptly investigate the claim; and (2) the duty to pay the claim if it is valid. It's part of the "good faith and fair dealing" obligation that all insurance companies are subject to. In my experience, insurance companies will lowball until the point a lawyer gets involved, since it usually costs them nothing to wait. If you're not getting anywhere fast, you may want representation.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2012 04:44
|
|
|
Diplomaticus posted:Not my particular area of law, but my understanding is that legislatures moved away from this due to difficulty in defining "impaired". For instance, what if you can have 10 beers and pass an FST? You can argue you aren't impaired. However if the standard was intoxicated, it becomes a simple question of "Is there X amount of intoxicating substance in your body?" However, passing a FST is tough for perfectly sober people.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2012 14:45
|
|
|
Lord Gaga posted:I passing like not wobbling at all or what? Cause I have no nystagmus and can do the heel to toe, 10+ steps thing fine but I might wobble a bit with arms down looking straight ahead.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2012 15:27
|
|
|
prussian advisor posted:Not to mention that in some states driving with an unlawful blood alcohol level is a separate crime even if you aren't impaired. True, but you usually don't get to the breath/blood test without having hosed up in some other way first.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2012 01:39
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:Do FSTs in Guam somehow involve coconut crabs? Because that would be spectacular Gotta juggle 'em. Usually the only problems here are that people are always wearing flip-flops/sandals/zories, and claim the trouble on the heel-toe or any balancing test was because of that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2012 06:10
|
|
|
nm posted:Your cops couldn't ask them to take them off? I don't think you want these things running around without the leash. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2012 06:24
|
|
|
nm posted:I'm sure flip flops are impenetrable for them. Cuts through metal, so you may as well be wearing flip flops for all the good it will do you.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2012 06:36
|
|
|
nm posted:Even my steel toed flip flops will be foiled. We have brown huntsman's, but they're not too common. Mostly we get smaller orb spiders, about the size of a half-dollar.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2012 06:52
|
|
|
50 pounds of bread posted:I have a question regarding California sexual harassment law. Tiny bit of salt to the claim, but might not be enough to protect them, depending on the nature of the harassment. Not a CA-barred lawyer, and haven't done much work in it. That said, In order for conduct to rise to the level of unlawful sexual harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the conduct must be (1) unwelcome, (2) sexual in nature, (3) it must have occurred because of the complainant’s sex, and (4) it must be sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an objectively hostile environment. #3 is the hurdle; but it all depends on the conduct, nature, and targeting. From the Department of Veteran Affairs, OEDCA, Vol.4 No.3 Summer 2001 digest: "A further word of caution is in order. We do not wish to suggest that an individual may inappropriately touch employees and get away with it, as long as he or she does it to both males and females. Although several appellate courts are of the opinion that it is not sexual harassment if the conduct is directed equally against both males and females, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has held, at least in one case, that “equal opportunity harassers” are not immune from Title VII’s prohibitions. At the very least, such behavior would constitute serious misconduct, for which the wrongdoer could and should be punished." Also, the quicker you move on this, the better, as time passage before claim = bad.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2012 07:30
|
|
|
Redfont posted:She did not unfortunately. She's dirt poor so she doesn't have insurance on anything, though I imagine this incident will convince her to try to get some homeowner's insurance. Check with this too: http://www.ag.state.il.us/victims/cvc.html
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2012 07:37
|
|
|
Little Miss RKO posted:I have a child support question. I'm now 25, and was born and currently live in Illinois. I'd start off by calling your local county child support office. If an order was ever issued, and Dad is in Illinois, you're probably good to go, as Illinois does not appear to have a statute of limitations on child support judgments, and child support payments usually become judgments as operation of law. If Dad is not in Illinois, UIFSA (the laws governing interstate cases) comes into play, which muddies things up a bit. Usually it means you'd have to file the case in his jurisdiction, but you may be able to apply in yours. But, if no order was ever issued, that may be problematic. The Illinois office would probably have a policy on this, as to whether your mom would be able to proceed long after you've reached the age of majority. I couldn't figure it out by skimming their laws, but any CS office in the state should know offhand. If everything actually got through, what you're looking at is getting a judgment on arrears, and a payment plan. My guess would be that he'd complain to the judge about his expenses, and since you're not currently a minor, you'd be getting something like $100-$200/mo. And by you, I mean your mom. This is not legal advice, I'm not barred in IL.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2012 00:51
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:What about a hypothetical situation where a guy gets a girl pregnant under the bleachers at a football game. They lose all contact after this, then she shows up 15 years later with a paternity test and a child support case. Would child support generally start at this point, or would he owe 15 years of back support? In my jurisdiction, the child support would start at that point, as the child is over the age of 6 and paternity had not already been established. If the child were under 6, or the GT were done early, dad would be liable for all the years. I would guess that each state does this differently.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2012 00:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 08:19 |
|
|
Dogen posted:Not a MN lawyer. Also not a MN lawyer, but looking this up independently, I came up with the exact same answer.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2012 06:14
|
|