Torts

Children should go to school because it prepares them for life and a country without any education would be very poor ,suck badly at wars and have a verydifficult time picking a leader, I mean look at all of those country' in Middle East or Africa there very poor and have a difficult time picking a leader, they do not necessarily suck at wars but the children are uneducated and spend their lives working and besides schools are a great way to socialize and if a child goes to school and is educated enough he will have a chance to go to collage, so children should go to school if they want a descent life

This question regards filing and official answer to a law suit. The defendant will file answers to each charge citing a defense such as statute of limitation, fraud, etc. In turn the next step will be discovery and presenting of evidence by each side for review.

Yes of course, especially if there was some damage done to something of value.

Defamation is the act of stating something false against someone else, which in turn can ruin their character. It is often referred to as "defamation of character."

Each owner should pay fifty percent of the total bill for both dogs. In other words, if one dog needs $200 worth of care, and the other dog $1,000 worth of care, the total is $1,200 and each owner pays $600.

That's if neither dog was at fault, nor was on the other dog's property.

yes, because there could be an emergency in school and the parents might need to be reached

115 million primary school aged children dont go to school

the act of the mode of performing a work of art

Quite simply, criminal law deals with violations of statutory crime and its punishment, civil law deals with non-criminal things such as contracts/business, and things such as divorce, etc. You can be charged under both criminal and civil proceedings though. A perfect example is OJ Simpson being aquitted of criminal charges but being found guilty in civil proceedings. Probably the biggest difference between the two is what is called "BURDEN OF PROOF"

In criminal proceedings the burden is "BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT" for someone to be convicted. This means that the evidence points substantially towards guilt and there is little to no question of guilt. For a jury in this case you would need everyone in agreement or the case is a mistrial. Unaminity is the key.

In civil proceedings all that is required is "preponderance of evidence" which means that if it is found that it was more likely than not that an incident occured then you can be convicted. This kind of proceeding is really a "who has the best evidence" type of case. Only a majority of jury members decision is needed in this case.

ANSWER 2

1. Criminal Law cases must prove the person's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, whilst civil cases must be proved on the balance of probability

2. The main difference however is who the law is aimed at.

Theoretically criminal law is a considered to be harming all members of society. Consequently, the victim of the criminal case is all of society; hence the case is brought on behalf of the police and prosecution on behalf of society. In contrast to this, civil/private law, the offence is committed against the individual :)

Question is unclear, because the term "plaintiff" is used exclusively in a civil law cases, and the term "defendant" is used exclusively in a criminal law casea. Which is it? Actually the only thing that anyone can do is try to bring out the lying factor during testimony. If any attorneys are involved - be sure they know about it also.

I believe it is section 310 or 311

It depends on the crime, where you were when your spouse did whatever he/she did, and whether you have an allabi. GET A LAWYER

gloucester grammar school case (1410)

Yes, perhaps the most well known case of that happening is the OJ Simpson situation where he was found not guilty in a criminal case of murdering his ex-wife and another man, and he was found civilly liable for their deaths. For information on the civil and criminal processes please see the related links below.

No, the defendant does not have to have "intent" to be held liable for a tort.

The plaintiff only has the prove that damages were caused and that the defendant caused them. Whether the defendant caused them intentionally or negligently is, usually, irrelevant.

True or false Tort law deals with disputes and pover

Anyone who is sued is allowed to testify at trial for a calim against him or her.

I am not an attorney. But I do know you can sue anyone for anything. The question is "will that claim be taken seriously." The answer is probably not. You cannot sue two consenting adults for having an affair. They willingly participated in this affair and he alienated you not the woman. If you no longer want to be married, divorce your spouse. Finally, as painful as this is, many people seek counseling and get past affairs. the pain you feel is real and deep. So, if you decide to stay, don't try to suck it up and get over it. Seek professional help through a psychologist or life coach. If your husband wants the relationship, he will gladly participate. dr.sis

Yes, a manager can sue a union for defamation. They will more than likely need to get an employment or union attorney to help them in the case.

No, a marital separation letter is not legal until it is filed with the court system. It also must be signed, dated, and notarized.

Probably not. Since you were a trespasser, you had no right to be on the property. A landowner may use reasonable force to remove a trespasser from his property. And, depending on the nature of your trespass, you will not be looked at favorably in the courts should you choose to sue.

In reality, the answer often depends on the size of the company, their assets (deep pockets), and the perceived validity of the claim. Smaller companies -- espeically ones with few assets and not a lot to lose -- may turn hostile and, if this is the case, the plaintiff should consider looking for work elsewhere. Note that this is not a statement about whether this is right or wrong, but simply an observation. Larger companies with significant assets, when confronted by what they perceive to be a valid claim will typically take instant action. The alleged perpetrator will typically be required to receive counseling at the very least, and someone, often from HR, will be assigned to observe for future occurrences. Stronger sanctions, up to and including instant termination are also possible. Usually, the company will talk to the plaintiff and attempt to come to a polite resolution that appeals to everyone. This will typically involve convincing reasons the plaintiff can expect no recurrence of the problem. If the plaintiff has made a legitimate claim, and is then discharged in retaliation, the company can easily become liable to civil and, in some states, criminal action. Note that "whistleblower" laws, which vary from state to state, may well apply. If this happens, the claim will be examined, either by agency or a court of law and, if the claim is determined to have merit, damages may be assessed, as well as fines. Further, the matter may be turned over to other agencies and even the DoJ for review. In an actual civil suit for damages, the defense will hope to focus on questioning the validity of the plaintiff's claim. Typical (and sometimes accurate) defenses are that the degree of harassment was minimal or wasn't actually harassment, the victim was unclear about her feelings on the matter, or the victim was not actually harassed but instead invited this behavior. I believe that this sort of defense is as much intended to accurately assess the facts of the case as it is to wear down the plaintiff. Make no mistake -- unless the harassment is in absolutely no question (e.g. has been witnessed by others on numerous occasions, was perpetrated by the plaintiff's supervisor or person in authority, etc.), such a lawsuit is work. However, in overt cases, the courts have been very responsive. BE ADVISED: The well-meaning opinion of a friendly layman is not a substitute for real legal advice from a real lawyer :} I'm no lawyer and this is not legal advice. The Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) might handle this on its own if you want it to or you can file a complaint in the Federal District Court. Go to www.eeoc.gov to see info on sex harassment suits. You'll see differences and standards of proof for both direct and indirect sex harassment. One element that is sometimes tough to prove is that the harassing conduct is "unwelcome." That has to be proved. Many times workers do not want to rock the boat or get anyone in trouble, as with indirect harassment, so they ignore things hoping they will go away. When they don't, the harasser claims he/she didn't know what he was doing was unwelcome. That can be fatal to even a valid sex harassment case.

I was accused of putting my hands on a employee, by some one else. the person that I supposedly did it to said she was lying, but I got written up. what can i do

Thirty business days from the time it is assumed the person received the summons that is generally presumed to be 5 days after it has been issued.

Yes.

You must show you have suffered damages. The downside is it unlikely a person who commits a criminal act has the financial resources to reimburse the plaintiff/victim.

45 US states have laws in place to allow a crime victim to initiate a lawsuit for damages, although the majority of these laws pertain to physical and/or emotional harm.

Most people are covered by insurance when a crime relates to the taking of items from a home or apartment, if such is the case filing a lawsuit would likely not be beneficial to the victimized person.

The best option is to consult with the prosecuting attorney's office about the possibility of the judge ordering restitution to the victim as part of the sentencing process.