Jump to content

MiddlePart

Members
  • Content Count

    310
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

MiddlePart last won the day on August 7

MiddlePart had the most liked content!

About MiddlePart

  • Rank
    Bronze Contributor

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. In general, no. Take a look at Tennessee Code section 39-14-205. It is a criminal offense to kill someone else’s animal without the owners consent, except if the animal is at the time believed likely to kill or seriously hurt a person or another animal. 39-14-202 might apply if the shot doesn’t kill the horse
  2. Week-to-week residential tenancies are covered by the South Carolina Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t27c040.php in general the same procedures apply. But some of the notice periods are shorter for week to week arrangements than for monthly or yearly arrangements.
  3. The specifics will vary depending on the state in which you intend to form the entity, but typically you’d file a notice or certificate with the appropriate state agency that identifies the entity name, address, registered agent, and any other matters that state law requires be included in such a document. You would also have to pay a filing fee. It would generally be a good idea to have a written partnership agreement, but that typically wouldn’t be filed with the state. You would also need to obtain an EIN from the IRS — there’s a form you submit to them for that. Depending on the nature of the business you plan to conduct, you may need to register to collect/remit sales tax, and you might also need business licenses.
  4. In general, yes. The regulations expressly say that Places of public accommodation must remove architectural barriers in existing facilities where such removal is readily achievable. that said, there are some limitations and exceptions that in part depend on the nature of the alleged non-compliance, and in part on other facts, and so you’d want to have the claim reviewed by knowledgeable counsel who can advise you on the specifics. Probably. A retail business that is open to the public meets the standard.
  5. Information on ‘opting out’ — requesting to not have a smart meter — is available from the California Public Utilities Commission. Site: www.cpuc.ca.gov use the site search box to search for ‘smart meter’ it should take you to the appropriate pages
  6. Without knowing something about the case generally, and without knowing anything about the particular filing and information that previously was subject to confidential treatment but now isn’t, it would be impossible to know why the judge took this action. Apparently something happened that caused him to reconsider his prior order but without some context and more information there’s no way to meaningfully guess what it was
  7. It depends. Information at this link may be useful to you in determining the answer. https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-individuals/faq/524/if-i-am-unconscious-can-my-health-care-provider-still-share-my-health-information-with-family/index.html
  8. That amount is within the jurisdiction of small claims court in California. https://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/small_claims/file.shtml
  9. A person can contact the local police and claim that (A) he gave someone a cash deposit, (B) he's entitled to get the deposit back, and (C) the person holding the deposit is refusing to return it. Whether the police are interested in investigating such a matter is something that cannot be predicted, but, on the surface, seems unlikely. The police would probably be more inclined to let the two parties hash the matter out through litigation rather than through criminal proceedings. Pretty much the same analysis applies to these 2 scenarios. The person who gave you the vehicle to do work on it can tell the police whatever he wants to; whether the police will pursue the matter is not under his control. On the limited information you've supplied, it seems far more likely that the police would recommend that you and he sort out your differences in civil court.
  10. Do the ordinances include a "Definitions" section? Words like "principal structure," or, just "structure" etc. may be given particular meanings in the Definitions ordinance that affect the interpretation of the ordinance that you are asking about.
  11. The only way to be certain is to review the ordinances -- to see if there is a specific definition for the terms used in the ordinance. It might also be relevant to do legal research and see how the courts in your state have construed and applied the ordinance. Any other answer to your question that I might provide would be pure speculation.
  12. In some sense, it doesn't really matter what her will said on the subject. The real question is whether there actually was a joint account, or an account that had a POD designation. The bank or other institution where the account existed would have that information. If it really was a joint account between wife and your father, or if it really was an account in wife's name that designated father with a POD, then regardless of what her will may have said on the subject, the monies would have belonged to your father at the time of her death without any further action. Part of the point of having a joint account or having a POD designation on an account is that the contents of the account are not subject to a will or probate proceedings.
  13. There's no way to really answer that question as asked, other than by saying "maybe." FWIW, in my experience, most plaintiff-side medical malpractice firms are small firms (in terms of how many attorneys work there). But that's not a reflection on their ability to successfully pursue a case or to assist their client in receiving substantial compensation when the facts and law warrant it. Suggest you contact a few plaintiff-side medical malpractice firms in your area and gauge their interest in the case.
  14. Has a probate proceeding been started? If it has, you'd generally be able to see the will because it would be part of the court's file and thus presumptively a publicly-available document.
  15. North Carolina and New Jersey are both participants in the Drivers License Compact -- an interstate agreement in which most states participate. https://www.carolinaattorneys.com/files/north-carolina-drivers-license-compact.pdf The law as adopted in each of the participating states generally requires states to share information about traffic offenses with other states in the case of a driver of one state being convicted of a traffic offense in another participating state. Some kinds of offenses must be reported; other types of offenses may be reported. It is up to each state on what penalty, if any, to assess against a driver licensed in that state as a consequence of a traffic violation in another state. So in this situation, if you are convicted in New Jersey of doing an illegal U-turn, New Jersey might report that information to North Carolina (because improper U-turns are not one of the offenses that must be reported). If New Jersey does report it, it is up to North Carolina to decide whether to put points on your license and if so how many. You would need to consult with a lawyer in North Carolina who handles traffic matters to get a definite answer to your question - some quick google searching was inconclusive. Based on what I did see, my best guess is North Carolina would not give you points based on an out-of-state conviction for improper U-turn, but as I say that is just a best guess.
×
×
  • Create New...