An act can be a civil wrong as well as a criminal wrong. For example, OJ Simpson was tried for murder, a criminal law violation. Had he been found guilty, he would have been sentenced (probably to jail) by the state.
The family of the alleged victim also filed a civil suitagainst him for wrongful death, asserting that he had deprived the victim of life. The family sought monetary damages. Wrongfully causing the death of another is a civil tort.
The U.S. Supreme Court is the final court of appeal for both civil and criminal law.
There are both civil fraud and criminal fraud statutes. It depends on what the IRS decides to pursue.
Both
It means that that court can hear both criminal or civil cases. Either a criminal case can be filed and heard in that court, OR a civil case can be filed and heard in that court. For instance: most(all?) state circuit courts fit this description.
Assaults and batterys are both criminal offenses andcivil torts.
(in the US) A perfect example would be the O.J. Simpson case. He was found not guilty of Homicide, but found guilty in civil court of causing "wrongful death."
Yes, you can.
Both, Criminal and Civil law work to protect our rights as citizens, they cover very different aspects of society.
I have no idea what the questioner is asking. Both civil and criminal laws relate to the nursing profession.
Appellate courts are technically not classified as criminal or civil since those kinds of of trials are not held there. In addition appellate courts hear both civil and criminal appeals. There is no separate criminal appellate court or civil appellate court.
In both cases, the moving party bears the burden of proof. In a criminal case, that is the government. In a civil case, that is the plaintiff.
It can be both, criminal charges can apply under the FCC regulations and any state statutes and the "hacker" can also be sued for damages in civil court.