Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing most liked content since 08/22/2017 in all areas

  1. 1 like
    Are we talking about a bicycle or a motorcycle? Huh? Whether or not you had a lawyer has no bearing on whether liability exists. Also, I assume this is the other driver's auto liability insurer. We have no way of intelligently assessing the merits of the case based on a few sentences on a message board. The statute of limitations on personal injury claims is two years, so if the accident happened on November xy, 2015, you have until November xy, 2017 to sue or your claim will be forever barred. The statute of limitations for property damage cases is three years. I'm not really sure what you mean by "will it need a trial or should I settle" means, but we obviously have no way of knowing whether the case will settle before trial. You said you found a lawyer willing to take the case, so this is something to discuss with that lawyer.
  2. 1 like
    That should have been something to discuss with your lawyer before you hired him. The statute of limitations for a personal injury lawsuit in CA is 2 years. If you don't file suit by the anniversary date in November, you'll be time barred from suing after that and the insurance company will just close its file and never have to pay you anything. Once a lawsuit is filed, it's up to the insurance company to decide if it wants to stand fast with its denial or offer a settlement. If it continues to deny, it goes to trial. If it makes an offer it becomes your choice to accept it or go to trial and try for a bigger award. As to whether you win or not, there's no way to predict. For the future I suggest you always carry a cell phone that takes pictures. And if you are ever in an accident again, call the police to the scene no matter what.
  3. 1 like
    I would suggest you direct your questions to your lawyers rather than anonymous strangers on the internet. Whether you may win or lose depends entirely on the facts, the adjuster, and the court in which the case is filed.
  4. 1 like
    How's this for a possible reason? MD law allows for one month written notice of termination to the end of the next rental period and it doesn't have to be mailed, he can just hand it to you to comply with the statutory notice requirement. So go pick it up and then talk to him about getting the extension in writing. You haven't settled anything until you get it in writing. Relying on an oral agreement is just plain foolish.
  5. 1 like
    I should hope it goes without saying that we have no way of knowing why your landlord wants you to do this. Ask him. You should also get the agreement to let you remain in the apartment until next March in writing.
  6. 1 like
    I would ask the clerk if there is an information technology guy or girl in the clerk's office who I could talk to. Those folks are usually excited to help with your type of project.
  7. 1 like
  8. 1 like
    You first need to determine what the charged crime and court imposed sentence was,and a simple call to the Clerk of Court,will quickly give you the answers to that.Also,you could check the Utah Department of Corrections website,do an inmate search by entering his name and/or his inmate ID#.If this available in Utah,it will show the exact charges,sentences,and any Tentative Parole Month,(TPM) Without knowing the particular Statute he was sentenced under or weather the plea agreement you mentioned was rejected by the judge,it's uncertain to know what actually happened.You should be aware though,that even if the prosecutor offered a plea agreement to which your friend accepted,it was still up to the judge to sign off on it,and they can lawfully outright reject any plea agreement offered by the state. Also,be aware,that parole is a privilege,not a lawful right,meaning that if the judge did in fact sentence your friend to 26 years,the parole board,who has full discretion can make him do every day of it.
  9. 1 like
    Whether you have insurance or not has nothing to do with whether the other driver is liable for the damage to your vehicle or whether the other driver's insurance will pay for the damage. It would only be important if Tennessee was a no-fault insurance state, which it is not. Your damages should be paid. The police do not determine who is at fault in automobile crashes. The penalty for driving without insurance in Tennessee appear to be severe, including a $300 fine, license suspension, registration suspension, and requirement to carry SR-22 insurance for the next three years.
  10. 1 like
    You're misunderstanding the information at the link you provided. You can only get an "uncontested" divorce if your spouse does not contest anything. You spouse is always free to contest issues relating to alimony, property division, and child custody, visitation, and support. The bill to which you linked (which was, in fact, enacted into law) provides an additional ground for divorce (or modifies an existing ground). I'm not sure who at the family court you've talked to. As far as lawyers, you should be aware that the link you provided was a link to a bill, not the actual law. The actual law that sets out the grounds for divorce is section 3301 of Title 23 of the Pennsylvania Statutes. As far as lawyers not having used it, it's obviously a very new change to the law, so that's not too surprising. Counseling? Section 3301(c) allows for divorce based on mutual consent. Section 3301(c)(2) states that the "consent of a party shall be presumed where that party has been convicted of committing a personal injury crime against the other party." Section 3301(c)(1) states that a divorce based on mutual consent may be granted no sooner than 90 days after commencement of the divorce case. Section 3301(d)(2) provides that the "court shall require counseling" where the parties have sought a divorce based on irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, but that's not applicable if you seek a divorce based on mutual consent.
  11. 1 like
    Yes, it is possible to have someone else be your temporary guardian for school purposes. Do your parents agree? Do you have a friend who has parents willing to take on that responsibility? As for tuition, the qualifications are set by the Ohio Department of Higher Education (ODHE) in the Ohio Administrative Code, Chapter 3333-1-10 and Ohio Revised Code, Chapter 3333.31.
  12. 1 like
    Where are you? In the US or another country? Do you know where your father is and is he still alive? You can not sue for child support if that is the question. Your mother could have filed for support until you turned 18, so that ship sailed 19 years ago. If you can prove that you are a biological child of his, when he passes, you would be entitled to a portion of his estate, if there is one.
  13. 1 like
    The way it works under the statute is that the court cannot grant the divorce until at least 90 days have passed since the date you filed the petition for the divorce. The new law deems your spouse to have consented to the divorce where she was convicted of a personal crime against you. So you may pursue the no fault divorce on your own without her consent. It is still considered a divorce by mutual consent, though, so most of the other rules for that kind of divorce still apply. But the new law did make a change to the counseling rule. The basic rule is that where the divorce is by mutual consent, the court may order counseling to take place during that 90 day period if either party requests the counseling. If neither party asks for counseling it won’t be ordered. The change by the new act says that you cannot be forced to attend counseling in the circumstance where your spouse was convicted of committing personal injury crime against you. So, in short, you still have to wait at least 90 days after you file the petition before the court may grant the divorce. You can pursue the mutual consent divorce on your own without the need for her consent if she was convicted of committing a crime of violence against you. But you won’t be forced to do the counseling during that 90 days if you don’t want to do it. (And she might not even ask for it to begin with.) Other than those changes, though, all the other rules for divorce remain the same. You’ll still have to work out the split of property, deal with any alimony/child support matters, etc if she wants to contest any of that stuff. The forms for the affidavit of consent are filed with the court after the 90 days have passed after filing the complaint. This is clear from the forms as you attest on the form that 90 days have elapsed. (The forms are available from the PA Courts.) There are two separate forms the court has for this, one for you and one for your spouse. In the situation where her consent is not needed because she had committed a personal injury crime against you the affidavit for her obviously won’t be filed. My best guess is that after the 90 days you would file your affidavit of consent and then also file a notice with the court that her consent is deemed to have been granted because of the presumption in section 3301(c)(2) and set forth the facts of her conviction. But I don’t know that for sure. The law is new so it may be that the courts will decide some other procedure should be used. You’d want to consult a divorce attorney about that. By the way, the basic steps for this kind of divorce are explained here: mutual consent divorce. Remember, it is still a mutual consent divorce; the new law just deems her to have consented so you don't have to actually get her consent.
  14. 1 like
    "do is consult". My original post had a typo "domisconsult" that the OP saw in the minute or so before I corrected it. My suggestion that the OP consult a psychiatrist or psychologist was an attempt to initiate the necessary treatment process. It was only partially tongue in cheek.
  15. 1 like
    ElleMD -- As a practical matter, what you are saying is probably true and certainly makes some sense. The problem is that the OP's lease (quoted) says that the Tenant is supposed to arrange for the required utility services, not the Landlord. The OP's lease does say that the Tenant is supposed to pay for "most of the utility services required on the Premises" and then goes on to list a half-dozen services that the Tenant is specifically obligated to pay for, most of which really are required (heat, electricity, etc.). But the list also includes cable/telephone/Internet, which, to the OP's point, are probably not required to the same extent as the other listed services. It might be worth the OP's time to press the landlord a little bit on the basis that this Tenant would prefer to arrange its own cable/Internet/phone service as the lease apparently requires the Tenant to do. On the other hand, the OP says that the OP and his/her housemates would have preferred to get a $70/month Internet plan but instead are receiving a $100/month cable/Internet plan. The OP will need to decide whether the $30/month potential savings is worth the effort.
  16. 1 like
    Take bio-dad out of the picture. He has nothing to do with this. Whether mom takes out a billboard on the highway proclaiming your guy doesn't want the child to meet X or not, it changes nothing. X has the ability to seek parental tights if he is so inclined. Even if your guy does reverse paternity, that does not mean X automatically gets access or is named the father. For all any of you know, X isn't any more the father than the rest of you. Any relationship between X and the child or X and the mother is totally between those parties alone. All your guy needs to worry himself about is whether or not HE is interested in continuing to parent this child. Plenty of people parent children with whom they do not share DNA. Biology is only part of the picture. If your guy doesn't want to continue to be the father, he needs to file in court to terminate the relationship and provide proof of why it should be reversed. He no longer has a right to be in the child's life, but he also won't ever owe support. If he chooses to continue being the father, he can file in court to establish custody and visitation. He will likely then also be on the hook for support, but if he is the father, that goes with the territory.
  17. 1 like
    Complete sentences are always better. Here's what I think and will therefore assume you're saying: M and H are married but have been separated for four years. F moves in with M and, in 2015, M gives birth to a child. So...the father of the child born in 2015 is X. Right? Does M know who X is or has she lost count of all of her sexual partners? I assume you're referring to F - the guy who moved in with M. Right? It is unlikely that he signed the birth certificate. Parents don't typically sign their children's birth certificates. Rather, a birth certificate is typically signed by the delivering physician and a local records clerk. In any event, has F made any effort to obtain a copy of the birth certificate? If not, why not? I have little doubt that he was able to sign anything at any time. Define "legal." I don't really understand your question in light of your statement about taking action before the child's birthday. Assuming F's goal is to ensure that he is not considered the child's legal father (and, hence, potentially on the hook for child support for the next 16+ years), he would be an absolute fool not to retain the services of a local family law attorney ASAP. By the way, are you F, M, H, X, or someone else?
  18. 1 like
    A bunch of anonymous strangers on the internet are in no position to know what might be best for you or your cousin's baby (to say nothing of your cousin and the child's other parent). You didn't even tell us why the child was placed with you or where the parents are at the present time. Nor did you tell us anything about your personal situation. I suggest you seek advice from a local attorney.
  19. 1 like
    Generally, the courts prefer and believe what's best is permanency for the child. Guardianships can be undone, adoptions are final.
  20. 1 like
    Oh,he's just being his typical A-Hole self,no biggie.
  21. 1 like
    The definition of disability under the ADA is much broader than it is for Social Security disability income (SSDI) benefits. For Social Security benefits, you cannot be able to do any kind of “substantial gainful activity” (SGA). In short, if you can do any kind of work you are not likely to qualify for SSDI. This restrictive definition is because the idea of SSDI is that the claimant is too disabled to work and thus needs government assistance to replace the earnings he or she made from working. Under the ADA, the definition of a disability is explained by the Department of Justice in its Disability Rights guide as follows: “An individual with a disability is defined by the ADA as a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a person who has a history or record of such an impairment, or a person who is perceived by others as having such an impairment.” This language comes directly from the statute. So under this definition, a disability is an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities but is not necessarily one that would prevent the person from working. The idea with the ADA, as it applies to employment, is to recognize that a disability may make it harder for an employee to do his/her job and the goal of the Act is to provide help to disabled persons so that they can continue to work, if possible. Thus, the ADA requires that covered employers provide help (known as reasonable accommodation) to disabled employees to give them the means to overcome the disability and be able to do their work. I mean that the employer knew it was violating the FMLA but did it anyway. A lot of FMLA violations are not willful; that is, the employer violated the law simply because the employer didn’t know the law well and didn’t realize that what it was doing was legally prohibited. Then at that point, what did your wife do? She should have either (1) asked where here lawyer went to see if the lawyer was still willing to handle the case; (2) asked if another attorney in the old firm would handle it; or (3) seek out a new firm to consult about taking the case. A lot of law firms do not handle the departure of lawyers from the firm in an ideal fashion. At least in the jurisdictions which I practice, what lawyers and law firms should do when a lawyer leaves is send a letter to each of the lawyers clients advising them of the departure and then giving the client his/her choice to remain with the law firm, remain with the departing lawyer, or find an entirely different firm/lawyer to handle the matter. This assumes that the firm and/or the departing attorney are still able to handle the matter after the departure. If they are unable to handle it for whatever reason, the letter should state that. In any event, the client needs to be sure that the case will be handled by someone. If you just don’t act and let it fall through the cracks you can end up losing out.
  22. 1 like
    Your syntax is somewhat garbled but as near as I can make out, when your half-brother was 18 his dad owed your mother nearly $20,000 in child support arrears. Then sometime in the next three years the court lowered the arrears from $20,000 to "very little". Who sought this reduction, and on what grounds? Did your mother agree to the reduction? If in fact a court order was issued reducing the arrears (unusual but not unheard of) then your mother cannot collect on the "old" arrears. She is owed whatever the court order says she is owed. If the father passed away before even this new amount was paid, then it is still owed to her by the father's estate, but only until the estate is probated and closed. Your mother needs to file a claim on the estate ASAP if she hasn't done so already, assuming the estate is still in probate. Her claim for child support arrears should be given priority over the other debts owed by the estate. If the amount she is owed exceeds the value of the estate, she can only collect up to the value of the estate. I'm not aware of any legal mechanism by which she can collect from a source other than the estate. Consult local counsel.
  23. 1 like
    I'm not sure what you mean by “Family Protection Act”. I do not see any reference to such an act in either federal or Ohio law. If you mean the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), that is a law that requires certain employers to provide eligible employees up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for, among other things, illness of the employee. It is a law that only provides leave and prohibits and employer from terminating or discriminating against an employee because she took the leave. However, the employer may still terminate the employee for poor performance or other reasons other than the fact that the employee took the leave. The only other claim that might apply here might be under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). That act prohibits discrimination against employees because of a disability and requires that employers provide reasonable accommodation to help an employee do her job. But again, the ADA does not protect an employee from termination due to poor performance or for any reason other than because of the disability. It’s not clear that your wife had a good claim under either law. But even if she did, it is too late now to file a lawsuit under either of those federal laws. Under the ADA your wife first had to file a complaint with the EEOC within 300 days of the discriminating act. Once the EEOC issues a right to sue letter, she would then have 90 days from the date of the letter to sue in court. For the FMLA, it is two years from the date of the violation by the employer, or 3 years if the violation was wilful. Ohio also bars discrimination based on disability. The information I have suggests that employees have six years from the date of the discriminating act to file the lawsuit. So if the termination was in 2011 then she better see an attorney ASAP because if the statute of limitation has not yet expired it will expire soon. As I don't know all the facts, I can’t say if there might be other claims your wife might have. Bottom line here: your wife needs to see an attorney ASAP to see what claims she may have that have not yet expired due to the statute of limitations. If there are any she can still pursue, she needs to get started or she’ll lose out. She's already lost out on ADA and FMLA claims because of waiting too long. She might lose out completely by continuing to wait.
  24. 1 like
    Once again I find myself having to explain the difference between a notice of termination and an eviction. First you get a 3 day written notice of termination for not-payment of rent. http://law.justia.com/codes/ohio/2015/title-19/chapter-1923/section-1923.02/ If you don't pay by the deadline the park owner files for eviction through the courts. That takes time and the eviction can be dismissed if you pay your rent in full plus the mobile home park owner's court costs, process service fees, late charges and lawyer's fees if he had the lawyer do the work for him. Your disability has nothing to do with your contractual obligation to pay rent when it's due.
  25. 1 like
    A better place to look is Google Scholar: You can search all federal courts at one time and all civil courts at one time and even every court if you want to compile case decisions on a particular topic. http://scholar.google.com/ The first one is actually named Action for Children's Television vs FCC: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12220076459824773816&q=Children's+Television+v.+FCC,&hl=en&as_sdt=803 Note many other cases brought against the FCC by that Plaintiff: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Children's+Television+v.+FCC%2C&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=803 I found the same Miami Herald case using the citation number which ends with the numeral 730: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=418+U.S.+241&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=803 This is apparently a landmark freedom of the press case as it has been cited 4848 times in subsequent cases. I'm guessing that's the case you need to read since your class involves mass media. The following web pages will teach you how to read case citations: http://lawlibguides.byu.edu/c.php?g=315332&p=2106921 http://www.wikihow.com/Read-a-Legal-Citation Feel free to come back to this thread if you'd like further discussion.
  26. 1 like
    What the employer is doing is not illegal. In private employment, there is no law that requires an employer to hire the best qualified candidate or that prohibits an employer from favoring a friend or relative for the job. Sometimes when looking for a job who you know can be just as important (or more) than what you know. So if this really bothers you, about all you can do is find that other job and get out of the situation you don’t like.
  27. 1 like
    Speed it up. You're done there.
  28. 1 like
    Yes, unless this is a union position or a government job, there is no law requiring an employer to employ the candidate with the most experience or any experience.
  29. 1 like
    It is not illegal to hire a child of a golf buddy. Fact is it isn't even nepotism. If you can't work it out with your boss or HR your only option is to seek a transfer or other employment.
  30. 1 like
    In Pennsylvania you can have a sheriff (or State Constable) sale to regain money awarded in a civil action
  31. 1 like
    Was what she finally posted true? If it was not and she admits it was not true the TRO should be dismissed.
  32. 1 like
    After you're picked up on the warrant, the arresting state notifies the state that issued the warrant. That state then must send what's called a governor's warrant indicating that they wish to have the defendant extradited and they intend to come get him. If there hasn't been a hearing before the 24th, then that hearing is likely to determine if the defendant waives extradition. If he doesn't, then there will be another hearing if the governor's warrant hasn't been received yet. When they get that warrant there will be a hearing to determine if the defendant is the person named in the warrant. If they don't get a governor's warrant or get notice that the other state doesn't wish to extradite, they will ultimately release the defendant BUT that doesn't take care of the warrant OR the underlying charges. He can still get picked up on the warrant every time he's contacted by police and repeat the process ad infinitem. The ONLY way to clear the warrant is to surrender to the issuing court. There is no statute of limitations on a warrant.
  33. 1 like
    You need to learn that auto dealerships are not department stores. You can't take a truck back because you decided you don't want it anymore. The dealer is entitled to an opportunity to repair the truck and is entitled to get their profit from selling it. You can either go through with the financing and pay for the truck or kiss your down payment goodbye.
  34. 1 like
    If you're "not legally married," then this man is not your husband; he's your boyfriend. Perhaps you'd care to explain why you are calling him your "husband" if you're "not legally married." If you think you're "not legally married," why would you file taxes as married? Obviously, if you're "not legally married," there's no need for a divorce, and your boyfriend can legally evict you by giving you an appropriate notice (I doubt five days is sufficient, though). On the other hand, if you are married, then he cannot evict you simply by giving notice. One of you will have to file for divorce, and he'll have to ask the court to award exclusive possession of the marital residence.
  35. 1 like
    Wow, I hope you people are not lawyers giving these answers! Every time that tape is published by anyone other than both consenting parties, it is unlawful. In most two party consent states the recording is legally the property of the non-consenting party, and if published without consent, both criminal and civil action can be pursued. I live in Florida (two party Consent) and the State Attorney in my circuit will/does prosecute such an unlawful instance. As for your boss, after you seek criminal and civil action against the individual whom tape the conversation, ask him if your employer supports the criminal activity that took place in the workplace and the use of the illegal tape against you. Something tells me your employer/boss will change their tune. If your boss-has-a-boss, go all the way up the chain of command.
  36. 1 like
    Free Enterprise Society Traveling is a Right For many years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted upon the belief that traveling by motor vehicle upon the roadway was a privilege that was gained by a citizen only after approval by their respective state governments in the form of a permit or drivers license. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are being made aware that there are court decisions disproving the opinion that traveling is a privilege that requires government approval. "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 22. ("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement: stop lights, signs, etc.) "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 179. It could not be stated more conclusively that citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restrictions (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125. "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to move from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the 14th amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." Schactman v. Dulles, 96 App DC 287, 293. As hard as it is for those in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. The American citizen does indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. Government, in requiring the people to file for drivers license, vehicle registrations, mandatory insurance, and demanding they stop for vehicle inspections, roadblocks, etc. are restricting and therefore violating the peoples’ common law right to travel. Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. The American Citizens and Lawmen Association, in conjunction with the U.S. Federal Law Research Center are presently involved in studies in several areas involving questions on constitutional law. One of the many areas under review is that of the citizen’s right to travel. A spokesman stated in an interview: "Upon researching this subject over many months, substantial case law has presented itself that completely substantiates the position that the ‘right to travel unrestricted upon the nations highways’ is and always has been a fundamental right of every Citizen." This means that the beliefs and opinions of our state legislators, the courts, and those of us involved in the law enforcement profession have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that U.S. case law is overwhelming. To restrict in any fashion the movement of the individual American, in free exercise of the right to travel upon the roadways (excluding commerce, which the state legislatures are correct in regulating), is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution, as well as most state constitutions. Our system of law dictates that there is only one way to remove a right belonging to the people. That is by a person knowingly waiving a particular right. Some of the confusion in our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted, and opted into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are legally regulated by state law, and must obtain permits, registrations, insurance, etc. Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling in mind before issuing citations: "The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. U.S., F.2d 486, 489. Reprinted from a special edition of "Aid and Abet" bulletin #11, P.O. Box 8787, Phoenix, AZ. 85066, by Officer Jack McLamb. It is important to be aware of a different point of view about traffic since a near police state exists on America’s highways today. Traffic Support Services’ goal is to reestablish the RIGHT to travel!