Jump to content

Tax_Counsel

Members
  • Content Count

    19,452
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    101

Tax_Counsel last won the day on June 13

Tax_Counsel had the most liked content!

8 Followers

About Tax_Counsel

  • Rank
    Platinum Contributor

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. No, it is not true that you may drive on the roads of any state without a driver's license. The sites on the internet that promote that idea badly mischaracterizes the law. That slew of case law that you posted does not, unfortunately, stand for the proposition that whomever posted it says it does. What the authors of sites promoting this idea do is take quotes in cases that have have nothing to do with licensing at all or take the quotes out of context because the quotes sound good for the argument they wish to make. But should you try arguing those cases in court on a citation for driving without a license you will lose. When faced squarely with the issue of whether a license is required, the courts have universally said the answer is yes. I will give you a few of the cases in which the constitutionality of state laws requiring driver’s licenses has been upheld. Let’s start with the highest court in the land, the U.S. Supreme Court: Reitz v. Mealey, 314 U.S. 33, 36, 62 S. Ct. 24, 26–27, 86 L. Ed. 21 (1941). And as you put Oregon as your state, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (which is the federal appellate court that covers Oregon) explained why a driver’s license does not violate the right to travel: Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202, 1205–06 (9th Cir. 1999). Other circuits have reached the same conclusion: Matthew v. Honish, 233 F. App'x 563, 564 (7th Cir. 2007). Duncan v. Cone, No. 00-5705, 2000 WL 1828089, at *2 (6th Cir. Dec. 7, 2000). The above are cases in which the constitutionality of driver's license laws were specifically addressed, unlike the cases you cited. And as you can see, the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have found that driver's license laws do not violate the Constitution.
  2. The fact that no drug was left to test at a lab and none for the defense to test may be a problem for the state. The type of test done, how it was done, and the qualifications of the officer to do the test would be important factors, too. Both the passenger and driver ought to consult an attorney and see if there is a possibility of having the test evidence suppressed and to see what other defenses might be available.
  3. As I understand the facts, you were banned about 10 years ago from that casino. Recently you went back there and got a players card and started gambling there again. Before you got the card did you tell them you had been banned previously and ask if that ban could be lifted now? Or did you apply for the card as if you'd never been there before? In any event, after you started playing the machine you wanted to play rejected your player's card and you were told to come to the office. It seems likely that the casino finally found out you were banned years ago and if you did not tell them that when you applied for the card they likely were not happy with that and reinstated that old ban. In any event, when you got to the office, they apparently told you that you couldn't be there, which sounds to me like they were basically telling you that you were still banned. You seemed to understand that because for awhile you didn't go back there, but you did go again anyway and when you won they refused to pay you (and I'm guessing made it clear to you then that you were banned). Have I got that about right? If it is, then you might have trouble getting paid you winnings if you sued because you weren't supposed to be gambling there in the first place. You might be able to get a refund of the bet you made, though, if you can prove how much that was. Your player card information would help with that.
  4. You have lived there 10 years. So you are very likely now a month-to-month tenant. If you are a month-to-month tenant then it appears that the landlord may terminate your tenancy with a 30 day notice for pretty much any reason (other than illegal discrimination). If you are at least age 60 or if you have a disability you are allowed an additional 30 days to move out in most cases but you need to submit a request for that extension to the landlord in writing. If the landlord won't give you the additional 30 days you can go to court and ask the court for the extra time. You still have to pay the rent for that extra 30 days. See Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) section 40.251. But once the 30 or 60 days is over, you become a hold-over tenant if you continue to stay there and the landlord may then start the eviction process in court. You'd get served with a copy of the summons and complaint and have the chance to contest the landlord's eviction. If nothing else that would get you a little more time. Eventually though the landlord will get the order for eviction and once that happens the sheriff might have you put out at any time. So the bottom line is that you'll have some time to get out, 30 or 60 days plus the time needed for the landlord to go to court to get the eviction. But you don't want to procrastinate in moving. It's best to get out before the matter goes to court if possible. There might be some local organizations that help the disabled or elderly that could assist you with the moving process.
  5. If the company were to retaliate against you for making a complaint to the EEOC that would clearly be illegal. The problem is proving that's what the company is doing. If company officials are at all aware of the law they'll not tell you that's what they are doing.
  6. That's what I meant too when I said the image doesn't fit well with the rest of the flyer, and I agree that without it the flyer is rather nice.
  7. The fact that the company has been around for six years is no guarantee that the practice is legal. It may be that no employee has brought suit under the ADA for this. After all, it would only apply to testing of existing employees; under the ADA the employer could do it for new employees if all are tested. I don't know how many existing employees there are out there who (1) objected to the testing, (2) know the ADA well enough to know it might violate the ADA, and (3) were willing to undertake the time and expense to litigate the matter and litigate it through to the courts of appeal to get case law on it. While I think this may well violate the ADA, the OP may indeed be the first to chart those untested waters, with the risks that RetiredinVA mentioned.
  8. I disagree with that. I think that the fair use doctrine might well cover this particular publication of the work. He's posting not for a commercial purpose but as an example to get commentary and feedback on whether the use of the image would be a problem. But certainly using the image on flyers for advertising would be infringement.
  9. Both the characters Batman and Robin are trademarks of DC Comics and likely also Warner Bros. Studios, which does the DC comics films. In addition to that, if the image you are using is not one you created yourself then you have a copyright problem, too, as the creator of the image (or whomever the creator transferred the rights to) holds a copyright in it. If you use trademarks or material protected by copyright without permission of the holders of those rights for this ad you are infringing on their rights and are inviting could be a very costly lawsuit against you. DC comics and Warner Bros both are very protective of their trademarks and copyrights and should they learn of what you did you can bet you will hear from them. With that in mind, before you use this image I suggest you contact all the trademark and copyright holders involved and secure a license to use the image. My guess is they won't agree to that, but if they do it likely will not be cheap. I think all around it would simply be better for you to omit the Batman and Robin image from the ad. That eliminates any infringement problems and, besides, IMO the image doesn't fit very well with the rest of the ad, which has a very different look and tone to it.
  10. The bank can close the account unless there is a court order that specifically directed the bank to provide the account. As the bank was not likely a party to this legal proceeding I'm guessing that there is no such court order directed to the bank. What the conservator needs to do is comply with the court order that the court entered with the respect to the award. I've not read that order so I don't know exactly what the conservator must do. If the conservator doesn't know the answer to that then he or she ought to take a copy of the order to an attorney for advice. Probably setting up the blocked account with another bank would suffice, but not having read the order I cannot say that for sure.
  11. It makes a huge difference if the law mandates the testing for all employees. In that case, EEOC regulations make it clear the medical tests are permitted. Specifically 29 CFR § 1630.14 states: (Bolding added.) As you can see, the regulation takes into account tests mandated by other laws, and with respect to your OSHA example, the regulation specifically says that tests mandated by OSHA fall into that category.
  12. I'd love to see the legal analysis they have for that statement. The statute itself doesn't say that as long as a test is done but not read it is ok. The statute specifies simply when the test can be done at all. Of course, I'm skeptical about a lot that is in that marketing piece, not just this statement.
  13. I think that's a weak argument, especially when the company had not had the need to do it previously. Certainly I can see where it is desirable from the employer's point of view, but truly necessary? I don't think so. And there is the matter that there are two parts to it: it must be job related, too. If the OP has been able to do the job the past five years without the need for this exam, I think the employer would be hard pressed to claim that it is job related now. I hope the employer got a good legal opinion on this before it embarked on this path.
  14. Yep, that last sentence is what I stated too.
  15. That's not as unusual as you might think. I've seen several localities with rules for grass, but they tend to be the sort that prohibit grass so long (think a foot or more in height) that the grass can harbor vermin and other pests.
×
×
  • Create New...