Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Tax_Counsel last won the day on April 29

Tax_Counsel had the most liked content!


About Tax_Counsel

  • Rank
    Platinum Contributor

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. As to the first part of that, it was the point of my reply to the OP that the U.S. does not have a mechanism that is as broad as he asked about, i.e. a suit "on behalf of the social good for issues". As to the suit you brought, it sounds very much like an action based on a federal or state consumer protection act. If it was, then the FTC or state consumer protection agency almost certainly could have pursued a similar action, in which case my description was accurate: you were standing in for something the government could have brought.
  2. I disagree that public attorney general laws are suing, as OP put it, "on behalf of the social good for issues". Those suits are claims in which a private person stands in place of the government and brings a claim that the government itself otherwise would have brought. Because of that, the range of issues that may be brought in such litigation is generally rather narrow to begin with. As a result, there is no general ability to bring the kinds of suit that the OP has in mind that may be brought in India.
  3. There is no process in the U.S. for what you describe. In the U.S. the courts role is not for "overall social betterment." The role of the courts in the U.S. is resolve disputes and controversies between specific parties.
  4. Your employer is only liable to you if your employer was negligent in some manner and your damages were attributable to that negligence. So, for example, if the employer knew there was a problem with the hoop that cause it to come off readily in a typical storm and failed to remedy it or your employer didn't know because the employer didn't check the condition of the hoop periodically then your employer would be negligent and liable to you for the damages caused. The employer's insurer does now owe you anything. The insurance contact is between the employer and the insurance company. The insurance company pays when it is obligated to pay per the terms of that policy. Typically the policy will say that it pays when the employer is negligent. In that case if the insurance company believes the company was not negligent, it will decline to pay. Your remedy if you believe the company was negligent is to sue your employer, not the insurance company. The burden is on you to prove the negligence in order to win. Take into account that, win or lose, you might tick off your employer by suing over this. That could, at worst, cost you your job. On the other hand, there is no indication here that you were at all fault here. So your own insurer should not raise your rates for just this claim. After all, there is nothing about this that suggests you are now a greater risk to insure than before.
  5. Let me put it this way: the fact that the warrant or the warrant application has an incorrect date of birth (DOB) does not itself make the warrant invalid. A DOB is not required for a search warrant. It is possible the search warrant is invalid for other reasons, but you'd need to have your lawyer look at all the facts and tell you if there is good basis for suppressing the evidence seized during the search.
  6. The subtenant wouldn't know about it unless the subtenant had been told that by one of them. But if the owner told the master tenant that the master tenant had the authority to lease out the room, that is actual authority, not apparent/ostensible authority. Black's Law Dictionary, 8th Ed., has a great definition for apparent authority: "Authority that a third party reasonably believes an agent has, based on the third party's dealings with the principal, even though the principal did not confer or intend to confer the authority." (Italics added.) As you can see from what I put in italics, the focus of apparent authority is the acts/statements of the principal to the third party. As a result, it is the acts of the principal (the owner in this case) that would reasonably indicate to the third person (the OP) that the agent (master tenant) had authority when, in fact, the agent did not have that authority that gives rise to apparent authority. That is why I asked what acts of the owner lead the OP to think the master tenant had the authority to make the lease. That's important if you want to raise an apparent authority defense in this case.
  7. The owner who is now evicting you. In order for the master tenant to be the agent of the owner under the concept of obstensible agency the owner had to do something at the time you negotiated your lease with the master tenant that would indicate to you that the master tenant had the authority to make that lease agreement. Simply being the daughter of the landlord and the landlord saying she'd inherit the property when he died doesn't do that. Nothing about those things says she's authorized to enter into leases on his behalf. What words or acts of owner can you point to that were done while you negotiated the lease that conveyed to you that master tenant (daughter) had that authority? In general, the master tenant would have the right to sublease, however, unless the lease between the master tenant and landlord prohibited it. Did you ask to see that lease before you did the sublease? That's something every subtenant should ask to see to ensure that the primary tenant does indeed have the power to sublease space. Do you know if the lease prohibits that?
  8. Not so. The lawyer's office rent, salaries, equipment, research services, etc., are all things that still must be paid. What savings do you think would come about if the work is filing and arguing these motions rather that filing and arguing other motions/pleadings?
  9. You are making a few mistakes in your assumptions and computations. Lawyers have a lot of business expenses; they don't keep all of that hourly fee. And then after that, there is the bite for federal, state, and local taxes. But let's assume the lawyer keeps all $300/hour and saves all of it but $300,000/year. If the lawyer bills for 2000 hours for the year (50 weeks x 40 hours a week) that's $600,000/year, not $731,250. Bear in mind that 2000 billable hours is a lot, lawyers have to work a lot more than 40 hours a week to get that. So after the living expenses of $300,000 a year, the lawyer has $300,000 a year to invest. At 3% per year compounded annually, that would work out to be $8,061,112 after 20 years. But given the incorrect assumptions above, the actual number would be a lot lower because there won't be $300,000/year to invest. No, but the OP didn't make clear exactly what it was that he was talking about. 😉
  10. And what act of the landlord, pray tell, do you see that provided apparent or obstensible authority to the master tenant? I'm not seeing it in the facts the OP provided. Look at the second element of the case you cited — there needs to be some act on the part of the supposed principal (the landlord here).
  11. If you marry and file a joint federal income tax return with your spouse then you will no longer qualify as a dependent on anyone else's federal income tax return. As for the FAFSA (which is what I assume you meant) whether you need your parent's information for that form depends on whether you are considered dependent of your parents for student aid purposes. The tests for that are different than being a dependent for tax purposes. If you are married you are not a dependent of your parents. To see the entire list of things that factor into whether you are dependent see the Department of Education page on Dependency Status. I caution you that teen marriage often does not work out well. You tend to change a lot by the time you hit age 25, and your goals and interests may end up different from the goals and interests of your spouse. You may also find that you are interested in a very different type of person as you get older. So do not rush into marriage as a teen. Make sure you marry for the right reasons. Simply to escape your parents is not a good reason to jump into marriage.
  12. As others have correctly said, you do not have a basis for appeal based on your own attorney's failure to present something you think should have been presented. While you might have a case for malpractice, to win that requires more than just that your attorney could have presented things that he failed to present. You also have to prove that it would have changed the outcome. And the problem is that it is quite possible the jury would have sided with the landlord anyway. It is very difficult to predict what a jury will do. I've seen cases in which the attorney did everything a very good attorney would do in a case that to most would be a clear winner for that attorneys client still end up with jury verdicts for the opposing side. Because of this attorney malpractice claims are difficult to win in this kind of circumstance. Losing certainly stings, but trying to armchair lawyer the case afterward and think that it clearly would have come out differently had something else been done is just an effort in frustration. You don't know the outcome would have changed, and even if it might have made a difference you are stuck with the outcome you have. Had you gone pro se, the outcome likely would not have been much better. Pro se parties often trip up over even basic rules of procedure and evidence, doing considerable damage to their case. This is not surprising when they have had little to no training or experience in litigation. Especially when the other side has an experienced lawyer to exploit those mistakes it can make for a very rough road for the pro se party.
  13. Jack, you evidently completely missed that the case was decided by a jury after a trial, not the judge. There won't be a written opinion on the trial outcome.
  14. It's not really clear what caused the problems you had after you got the car back. But if the shop did not put in the replacement engine as promised or did a shoddy job of it then it breached the contract you had and you may sue for that. In a breach of contract case, the damages you may claim are known as expectancy damages. This means you are entitled to get the amount of money it would take to put you back into the position you would have been had the contract been performed properly. In Colorado you may sue for up to $7,500 in small claims court.. The Colorado courts have a small claims page to help you get started. Note that the shop cannot avoid liability here by claiming it knew nothing about it and that it must have been a side job by that now ex-employee. If that guy was an employee at the time and represented he was acting on behalf of the shop when he made the deal for the work then the shop is likely liable under the concept of apparent authority. You would want to sue both the shop and that employee to cover all your bases.
  15. There is no recourse for taking an obsessive interest in her private life. The sexual harassment by the older man might have been a problem but the details matter. How many employees did the employer have, including her? What kind of actions did he take that she saw as sexual harassment? Where did these actions occur? The fact that they occurred outside of work may be a problem. Was he a supervisor or otherwise have some authority over her? Was he connecting his harassment with her job? And importantly, did she complain to the appropriate person in the company about his actions and ask for the company to stop it? It is illegal under Colorado law for an employer to discriminate against an employee because of legal activities of the employee that take place outside of work. So she might have a good claim here for the employer harassing her over her out of work activity — her dating life outside of work. This is not a case of the employer having a policy against employees dating each other since the employer apparently would be fine with your friend dating the older employee. I suggest your friend consult an attorney who litigates cases of wrongful termination in Colorado for advice on this. She might well have recourse for what happened.
  • Create New...