Jump to content

MiddlePart

Members
  • Content Count

    320
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

Everything posted by MiddlePart

  1. This website has links to resources for Iowa residents who need a lawyer but who might not be able to afford legal services. Perhaps one of the services linked there will be useful to you. https://www.iowafindalawyer.com/guide/57bc9b8ee4a99439370000dd/Low-Income-Legal-Assistance-Resources However, I think that Knort4's conclusion is correct -- unless the promise was reflected in a will or by naming you as a pay-on-death beneficiary, the account would be considered part of the estate. But consulting with an Iowa lawyer to confirm this, and to review the correspondence and other relevant documents and any other relevant facts that you may have left out of your post, would be a good idea.
  2. this website might be helpful https://www.floridabar.org/public/probono/
  3. Something you might consider for pulling federal court opinions, including in the Vargas case that you have cited: set up a PACER account. The account is free to set up. The charges for searches and reviewing documents are fairly minimal to begin with, and are waived if less than $15 total in any calendar quarter. And there is no charge for access to judicial opinions. Meaning you could search PACER for this Vargas case for a nominal cost, and read and download a copy of the opinion that you are interested in for free. And, if you don't rack up more than $15 in the calendar quarter, they won't charge you for the search either.
  4. Yes. Istituto Bancario Italiano SpA v. Hunter Eng’g Co., 449 A.2d 210 (Del. 1982) To our knowledge, the United States Supreme Court, as yet, has not definitively examined the conspiracy theory of jurisdiction. We must therefore attempt to formulate a workable standard, recognizing that evolution will inevitably call for refinement. The conspiracy theory rests in part upon the legal premise that the acts of a conspirator are imputed to all the other co-conspirators. We believe a strict test, modeled after the ones used in cases which have previously recognized the conspiracy theory of jurisdiction, withstands due process scrutiny. We therefore hold that a conspirator who is absent from the forum state is subject to the jurisdiction of the court, assuming he is properly served under state law, if the plaintiff can make a factual showing that: (1) a conspiracy to defraud existed; (2) the defendant was a member of that conspiracy; (3) a substantial act or substantial effect in furtherance of the conspiracy occurred in the forum state; (4) the defendant knew or had reason to know of the act in the forum state or that acts outside the forum state would have an effect in the forum state; and (5) the act in, or effect on, the forum state was a direct and foreseeable result of the conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy. Textor v. Bd. of Regents, 711 F.2d 1387 (7th Cir. 1983). There does not seem to be any question that if plaintiff's complaint alleges an actionable conspiracy then the minimum contacts test has been met. The "conspiracy theory" of personal jurisdiction is based on the "time honored notion that the acts of [a] conspirator in furtherance of a conspiracy may be attributed to the other members of the conspiracy." Gemini Enterprises, Inc. v. WFMY Television Corp., supra, 470 F.Supp. at 564; see also National Van Lines, Inc. v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 406 F.Supp. 1087 (N.D.Ill.1975); Socialist Workers Party v. Attorney General, 375 F.Supp. 318, 321 (S.D.N.Y.1974), vacated on other grounds, 510 F.2d 253, 257 (2nd Cir.1974); Mandelkorn v. Patrick, 359 F.Supp. 692 (D.D.C.1973); Green v. Advance Ross Electronics Corp., 86 Ill.2d 431, 440-441, 56 Ill.Dec. 657, 662, 427 N.E.2d 1203, 1208 (1981). To plead successfully facts supporting application of the conspiracy theory of jurisdiction a plaintiff must allege both an actionable conspiracy and a substantial act in furtherance of the conspiracy performed in the forum state. Gemini Enterprises, Inc. v. WFMY Television Corp., supra, at 564. If plaintiff's allegations are sufficient to establish both of these elements then it was an abuse of the district court's discretion to refuse plaintiff leave to amend.
  5. From these 2 statements, I understand that you made a deal in 2002 to sell your car but didn't actually complete the transaction (by transferring title) until 2011. It is unfortunate that you didn't transfer the title back in 2002 because without the title transfer, as far as the state was concerned, it was still your car until 2011 when you did transfer title. And if the traffic offenses were of the type that go to the owner of the vehicle (e.g. red light camera, speed camera, etc.) then those violations typically are your responsibility (as the vehicle owner) as far as the state was concerned. Consider speaking with a lawyer in Texas who handles traffic offenses, because there might be some other options available to you (or, at least, maybe some opportunity to seek a reduction in the amount), but my guess is the quickest/cheapest way for you to deal with the matter is to pay the fines.
  6. This message board does not serve as a lawyer referral service. There is a 'Find a Lawyer' link at the top of the page, which may lead you to a lawyer who would be interested in taking your case. That is one way (but far from the only way) for you to find the legal representation you are seeking.
  7. There is no law of which I am aware that requires a person to accept a letter delivered by the USPS, whether or not the letter was sent certified. However, as you've learned, there certainly can be adverse consequences to people who do not timely respond to or otherwise deal with matters that are sent to them via US mail. If the letter was properly addressed and carried sufficient postage to reach that address, then simply writing 'return to sender' on it and having it go back as a consequence would probably not be enough, by itself, to overcome the mailbox rule presumption; additional evidence would be required. But, yes, generally the Post Office is obliged to try to return to the sender letters that are marked with "Return to Sender."
  8. A few observations: It looks like you may be citing ORS 153.054, which requires that, subject to some exceptions, "an enforcement officer issuing a violation citation shall cause the summons to be delivered to the person cited." But one of the exceptions is a citation based on photo radar. ORS 810.439. And that statute pretty much only requires that they mail the citation to the registered owner of the vehicle. This is probably not a good defense. The state has an obligation at trial to prove that the item was in fact mailed, but in general as a matter of law, as long as the mail was addressed correctly and not returned by the post office, the law presumes receipt. Sometimes referred to as the 'mailbox rule.' Some legal research would be necessary to confirm that Oregon uses the mailbox rule, but it is a pretty safe assumption that it does. If the trial is over and you were found guilty, and you believe the trial and the resulting verdict were improper because of lack of due process, the main way for you to try to obtain relief would be to file an appeal. The time to file a notice of appeal and start the appeals process is typically short -- 30 days from the date of entry of the judgment. You may also have access to other kinds of post-judgment relief - Oregon has a petition for post-conviction relief (which would be filed and pursued in the same court that handled the trial), but I don't know if that's available for your kind of issue. And, once all state remedies have been exhausted, I suppose you could file a habeas case in federal court. NOTE: if the judgment was the result of a default judgment as described in the statute, you can file a motion for relief from default judgment and argue that one of the statutory bases for granting relief from a default judgment applies. Consulting with an experienced Oregon criminal defense lawyer to get some guidance would be a very good idea.
  9. If I'm understanding your question correctly: while a federal District Court decision would generally not be binding on other federal courts in most circumstances, another federal court may nevertheless view the prior District Court decision as persuasive -- that is, the second federal court decides that the District Court's analysis of the issue and the resulting decision is correct and, accordingly, the second federal court chooses to analyze and resolve the matter before it in the same way that the District Court analyzed and resolved the matter before it in its prior decision, even though the second federal court is not generally required to follow the prior District Court opinion.
  10. these resources may be useful to you: http://www.harriscountylawlibrary.org/ http://www.hcfmo.net/burnBan.aspx
  11. They might have a 'truth-in-advertising' problem if the FTC were interested. But in the end it was up to you to say "I thought the rent was supposed to be $754 -- how come this says $854?" and sort it out before you signed the lease. Did you ask that question before signing? What did the landlord say? The landlord may be willing to make an exception to the general rule for you to have a cat. Which the landlord (generally) doesn't have to do, but certainly can do if the landlord wants to. You'd probably want to get some kind of acknowledgment in writing that in consideration of paying the $25/month you're allowed to have a cat on the premises even though the lease says 'no pets allowed' just so it's clear.
  12. It seems that for small claims cases in some counties in Wisconsin, the court can decide the matter on the papers submitted without an in-person hearing. When that applies, the plaintiff files the complaint, and the defendant files an answer, and the court evaluates both and makes a decision. The summons your son received would have indicated whether the matter was going to an in-court hearing or would be decided on the papers -- and from your post above, I'm guessing it was the latter. There are appeals available if one disagrees with the decision. Check http://www.wicourts.gov there are some self-help guides there that explain the appeals process. The time to file those is often pretty short, so if that's something he plans to do, he should hurry up and check out the information. Yes, if not appealing the original decision, then he definitely should complete and submit the financial disclosure form. Otherwise like I said (above) that is a contempt of court and could have adverse consequences in itself beyond the judgment amount owed. so long as the methods for collection used and the amounts to be collected are in line with state laws on judgment collection -- for example, the rules that set a maximum amount of wage garnishment -- there's not much your son can do about it. Certainly he can speak to the judgment creditor and try to work something out, and if they're amenable to that then that could be a good way to go. But the judgment creditor doesn't have to do that if it doesn't want to.
  13. Consulting with a local attorney who can review the papers you received and advise on your options would be a good idea. If he owed money, it shouldn't be completely surprising that the creditor (or the debt recovery firm to whom the debt was sold) filed a lawsuit to collect the money. Once the case goes to judgment, the judgment holder has access to remedies through the court system to collect on the judgment. My guess would be that this sort of thing happens all the time. This raises the question whether the answer was properly filed and served. Did it go to both the clerk of court AND to the plaintiff-creditor, or just to the plaintiff-creditor? If the latter, the court might never have seen it. What information did you include in your answer? If it was just in the nature of -- "he's trying to repay.... he doesn't have any extra money right now ... his job situation is bad..." etc. that won't prevent the court from entering judgment for the amount claimed. Basically, unless the amount claimed was wrong, or if he's being pursued on debt he didn't actually incur, there's probably not much he'd have in the way of defense. In principle, I suppose there could have been some other available defenses, but there's not enough information in your post to be sure about that. Assuming the amount claimed was correct and assuming no other available legally-recognized defenses, the court would have ordinarily done exactly what it did -- enter judgment for the amount claimed. The language to which you are referring appears in the Order for Financial Disclosure. The court's order requires that your son fill out and submit a Financial Disclosure form. The judgment holder can use that information to determine whether it is worthwhile pursuing your son for the judgment amount (can't get water from a dry well) and, if it is worthwhile, what is the best way for the judgment holder to do that (e.g., bank account garnishment, wage garnishment, etc.). If your son were to ignore the order and not file the Financial disclosure form, that act would be treated as a contempt of court. The potential consequences for a contempt of court are as described on the form and, in an extreme case, could include imprisonment. The situation would have to be quite serious for a court to use that remedy, though. There are state laws that set some maximums on wage garnishment. It is usually based on a percentage of the wage (not to exceed X% of the wage) and also taking into account federal (and state) minimum wage requirements.
  14. Normally, bankruptcies automatically delete from one's credit report ten years after the filing date. Sometimes in only 7 years. It depends on which kind of bankruptcy proceeding it was (chapter 7 vs. chapter 13). If you're still seeing it on a current year credit report 16 years after the filing date, you probably need to contact the credit bureau to find out why they're still showing it.
  15. I tend to think that the livestreamers might have claims against the caller -- perhaps not under the wiretapping laws, but certainly for slander/defamation or false light to the extent they are being falsely accused of criminal activity or other non-criminal wrongdoing and suffer adverse consequences as a result. But I also think that RetiredinVA is correct that it would only be the people on the other end of the call who could bring a civil claim against the caller for violation of the wiretapping laws. That said, nothing prevents the livestreamers from contacting law enforcement, reporting the violation, and asking for an investigation (which could result in a criminal case) to the extent that a call involves violation of that state's statutory 2-party consent requirement.
  16. If the problem is serious enough, consider checking with a plaintiff's lawyer in your area to get an opinion whether a California court might be willing to entertain a nuisance claim based on secondhand smoke. There are some cases from some other states that support recovery on that theory, although on the whole the courts are typically not very receptive to claims on that basis. But I don't have a good sense of how California courts would consider the issue.
  17. Assuming for the sake of discussion that your allergy constitutes a disability covered by the law (and there may be some room for disagreement on that), then, under 504 and, perhaps also, the ADA, the school is obligated to provide reasonable accommodations to you. However, the reasonable accommodation requirement does not require any modification or accommodation that would fundamentally alter the nature or purpose of the school's program or that would cause an "undue burden" on the school. You would need to document your request for a reasonable accommodation -- define what is it you want the school to do for you. The school is not necessarily required to provide your preferred accommodation, and certainly can explore other accommodations besides what you may ask for from them. However, the school does not have to undertake action that would cause an undue burden on it -- to do things that would fundamentally change the program or that would be unreasonably expensive. It isn't clear from your post what it is you want the school to do. Relocating the med program or the vet program to a different building, or installing a filtration system, certainly seem like they might be undue burdens on the school, although one would want more information before drawing any definite conclusions. Offering you a transfer to a different location (assuming that the other location doesn't present any significant likelihood of pet hair) seems like one possible reasonable accommodation. You're not necessarily required to accept that offer, but you probably would need to come up with another alternative that would work for both you and the school to be able to stay in the program. Having a meeting with you is an appropriate way to explore options. If the school's lawyer is present, you may want to bring your own lawyer to the meeting to assure that your interests are protected. I know this was a typo and that you probably meant to say that people bring their dogs and let them roam the building. Still, it made me smile to think about dads wandering around the school offices.
  18. In a typical home purchase transaction, there are some closing costs that the buyer usually pays (e.g., fees associated with obtaining the mortgage) and some the seller usually pays (e.g. the listing agent's commission). However, as with many aspects of these transactions, who pays for what can be the subject of negotiation.
  19. Since you didn't provide any context, I can only offer very general answers. In a particular context, the answers might be different. Judge assignment -- in every court system, there is an internal process that the court uses to determine which judge will hear which case. The decision to have a particular judge preside over a particular case is often referred to as 'assignment' of the judge. Judge recusal -- a judge may decide that he or she should not preside over a case to which he or she has been assigned. Sometimes the judge will make that decision of his/her own accord, and sometimes the judge will make that decision in response to a motion or request submitted by one or more of the parties to the case. The decision of a judge to remove himself/herself from continuing to preside over a case is referred to as 'recusal.' probably you meant 'impartiality.' a judge having a 'lack of partiality' is usually a good thing.
  20. If your mother is currently mentally competent, then you probably do not have a way to force your brothers to provide the information you want. It would be up to your mother to inquire about the state of her accounts. If she is not currently mentally competent, you might be able to petition the courts to have yourself (or some trusted third party) appointed as her guardian; if that request is granted, the appointed guardian would then have the ability to manage her accounts and would be able to get information from the brother or from the bank where the accounts are. If that's something you want to pursue, I'd recommend that you engage an attorney in Florida -- that can be a complicated process and probably not a good DIY project. While this is a simple way to facilitate your brother managing your mother's money, as you've learned it does create some risks because it doesn't really put any limits on what the brother can do with the access that he has. If he really is a joint holder on the account, then -- purely from a legal perspective -- the money in your mother's account is equally his to do with as he sees fit. It is a terrible thing when people abuse the trust that has been placed in them, but unfortunately it does happen sometimes. The assumption I'm making here (based on the information you provided) is that what happened was there was an account with Mom as the accountholder, and then at brother's request, the account became joint Mom and brother. If that's not exactly what happened, there might be a different conclusion. Strictly speaking, the will doesn't play any part in this. The will defines what will happen to your mother's property at the time of her death, but it doesn't affect how her property is handled during her lifetime. Even if the will says "3-way split - no exceptions" -- that only covers whatever property she may still own at the time of her death.
  21. the answer is the same answer that I gave you in the other thread that you started on this matter. https://boards.answers.findlaw.com/topic/242466-can-i-combine-2-cases/ A Board of Directors is typically not a formally distinct legal entity, and so if you are making a claim against the members of the Board of Directors, you must serve each one individually. Exactly -- if each board member is a named party, then each board member must be individually served. On the facts you provided: it appears not. That somebody signed for the paperwork is proof that he/she received it, but it doesn't make the service good if the service was not to the correct person in the first place. You don't have to serve by Sheriff service. You can use private process servers, and service by mail may also be available to you. It is not "3 separate services" if the first 2 were ineffective.
  22. I read your post. I think the critical point is the very first sentence, which I quoted above. If you are in fact a tenant at will, then the landlord can evict you at any time and whether or not the landlord has a good reason (or any reason) for doing so. The landlord generally only has to give you 30 days' notice. If you can't or won't meet the landlord's requirements for staying in the premises (even if those requirements seem unreasonable to you), then the landlord probably will evict you. The advice that will prolong your stay with your cat in the current premises is to agree to all of the landlord's conditions, even if compliance may cost you money out of pocket (for example, from the higher electric costs associated with running the A/C and radiator) and even if compliance is otherwise inconvenient. But if you feel the conditions are unreasonable or too expensive or otherwise too difficult to comply with, then your only real recourse will be to find another place to live.
  23. The way I understand the statute that you have quoted, it is a federal misdemeanor to delay or prevent the mail from reaching its intended address. I don't think the focus is on the contents of the letter or package, but rather whether the US Postal Service has been impeded or prevented from performing the task that the sender has paid it to do -- to deliver the letter or package without undue delay (consistent with the amount of postage purchased and the corresponding level of service required) to the address indicated on the letter or package. From a quick glance at cases, it looks like most of the people who get in trouble under the statute are mailmen who for various, sometimes idiosyncratic, reasons deliberately don't deliver or deliberately significantly delay delivery of letters or packages or other items.
  24. There are some US Post Office rules on shipping firearms and other explosive weapons, and there are also some rules on shipping knives and bladed items, but I don't think either of those rules would apply to nunchucks (whether movie props or real). Check with your local post office to be sure. The Post Office is mostly worried about something going wrong with the package contents while in transit, and the rules on what you can and can't ship (e.g., explosives, knives, chemicals, etc.) tend to reflect that concern. If you prefer to use UPS or FedEx or some other competing package service, they will have their own rules, and you can talk to the person in the local UPS or FedEx store (or the other service) to confirm, but there, too, I'd be surprised if shipping nunchucks was limited or prohibited, pretty much for the same reason that the Post Office probably wouldn't limit or prohibit it. Shipping those items doesn't put other packages, or the postman/deliveryman, or the delivery vehicles at risk while in transit. That said, you and your buyer should make sure that having nunchucks in Washington state is legal. I think there are a few states where they are not legal, but I don't know whether Washington state is one of them.
  25. A Board of Directors is not ordinarily considered an entity for purposes of service of process. In a situation where a plaintiff believes that a company's board of directors would have some liability, the claims would be filed against each director individually. Accordingly a plaintiff would need to serve each director individually, even though the claims relate to activity that each individual took or failed to take in his/her capacity as a member of a board of directors. Service on the corporation is not the same as service on each member of the board of directors of the corporation in a circumstance where a plaintiff alleges claims directly against the board members. I'm not clear on what you're asking here. It might help if you could explain what orders the court issued that you are considering whether to appeal from.
×
×
  • Create New...