answersLogoWhite

0

1.Ingrid Law has sold shoes, worked in a bookstore, helped other people get jobs and assembled boxes for frozen eggplant burgers. 2. She and her 12-year-old daughter live in Boulder, Colorado, in a lovely old mobile home that they like to believe is a cross between a spaceship and a shoe box. They 3. enjoy writing on its walls and painting on its ceiling, and have two harps, a Flute and a Ukulele, as well as a fondness for muffins.She is also the author of Savvy 2012 nutmeg nominee. and is now proud of herself for that.

User Avatar

Wiki User

8y ago

What else can I help you with?

Continue Learning about Law

What information can be obtained in reading a legal opinion?

1. a description of the facts 2. a statement of the legal issues presented 3. the relevant rules of law 4. the holding 5. the policies and reasons that support the holding


Who wrote the English common law?

"Common Law" is the evolution of a consensus of opinion within a court system, especially by the higher courts, on the acceptance of a legal rule or doctrine. "English Common Law" is created by the traditions and precedents followed by the English Courts. In the U.S., since our legal system grew out of the English legal system, our Common Law is very similar to English Common Law, but is modified to reflect our own, American, values and traditions. Common Law basically looks at how previous courts have ruled on the same or similar issue and then rules the same way, so long as the facts are the same or similar enough. This is the concept of 'Stare Decisis' or 'Precedent'. It is based on values of consistancy and impartiality. People need to have some idea of what to expect the court to do in similar situations, and if the court rules one way for person 'A' then it should be expected to treat person 'B' the same way. Articulating a particular legal rule or doctrine in Common Law can often be difficult since different courts may describe or word a rule differently, and, since Common Law evolves and is often 'tweeked' by individual courts to fit their facts or idea of a just outcome in their case, a Common Law rule can change over time and in different jurisdictions. Common Law rules are best seen as generalized objective rules and not as specific, subjective rules since each case is different and the rule may not apply well to the facts of the individual case. This brings up another aspect of Common Law, in that, as it is said that for every rule there is an exception, in Common Law certain facts in a particular case can be used to distinguish that case from previous cases to which the rule has been applied and thus make the rule not apply to the current case. In law, facts matter, and different facts can allow a judge or attorney to argue that a Common Law rule does not apply or should give a different result given the specific fact pattern. One final aspect of Common Law I'll mention is the concept of "Controlling" law. Court systems follow heirarchies and divisions of jurisdiction, like the difference between Federal and State courts. Decisions by higher courts, like the Supreme Court, are "Controlling Law" over lower courts within their jurisdiction; meaning that decisions in lower courts are 'controlled' by or should follow the rules set down by the higher court. The highest court in an individual State makes Controlling law for the lower courts in that state. Decisions by courts in one State do not control decisions of courts in another. Controlling Law can get very confusing because a lot depends on what kind of law the case involves, whether it be State or Federal law, or a statute or a Common Law issue.


In Illinois is an agency required to state finding of facts separately and does a conclusion of law required in making a decision?

Typically so-called "Agency Hearings" are not conducted, and do not necessarily adhere to, courtroom rules of law. If an intra-agency hearing was conducted, unless the subject matter was deemed restricted or involved some kind of privacy rulings, the results of the hearing should be available to those parties needing to be aware of them. Has the questioner asked?


What is No genuine issue of material fact?

"No genuine issue of material fact" refers to a situation where there is no dispute or disagreement between the parties on the key facts relevant to the legal case. This is often seen in a summary judgment motion where the court determines that, based on the undisputed facts presented, one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.


Is there an analog to res ipsa loquitor in Continental Law?

In Continental law, the concept similar to res ipsa loquitor is known as "onus probandi" or "inversed burden of proof." This principle shifts the burden of proof to the defendant when certain facts are established, implying negligence or fault. However, the application and scope of this concept may vary among different Continental legal systems.