Torts

No. Civil is majority must agree.

Yes, someone can be sued or held liable both criminally and civilly, for the death of another.

Aside from a murder charge (which is criminal/penal in nature), the surviving relatives of the deceased victim have the right to make what is called a '''wrongful death claim. In a wrongful death claim, the surviving family is asking for monetary damages for the loss of their loved one.''' Yes, that's what happened to O.J.

It is called a Wrongful Death suit.

Yes aside for being a murdering S.O.S. the victim has also had their civil rights violated.

*Also you are not the one who will charge the person fore the murder but the "State, province, country etc." are the ones in charge of that ; But it could be different for different countries.

The woman is not in her right mind. What good would that do you or her? She'll still do it and it may become worse. Educate yourself to what might be wrong with her, she may have Turette's Syndrome, etc.

When the suit is filed and the opposing party has knowledge of the suit.

I think that it is very difficult in most if not all states and court rooms. I do think that mental abuse is far worse than physical, which is recognized. Physical abuse, can heal more quickly. Emotional, sometimes never does. To prove, you willlhave to start a journal or some type of documenattion process. You will have to write down everything that happens to you in that documentation and keep it hidden. Over time, you will hopefully have enough documentation to show a habit, or trend and the courts may look at that. Othewise, keep yourself safe, and If it's your child or a child that you are trying to keep this from happening to, just fill their heads with the right way to be through demonstration, and positivity, and will grow up and be able to leave and make their own choices one day.

Negligent driving is having other distractions or agendas above being safely on the road. This includes the current favorite issue with cellphones, watching movies as you drive, passing other drivers with little or no warning, loud booming music, driving under the influence and so on. Basically, you should drive so as to not inconvenience any other driver: they should not have to brake for you, close their windows to avoid sound, and pedestrians should be safe in crosswalks and elsewhere.

No. You can not appoint an Guardian ad liem without the other party knowing about it. This process can be executed two ways. One is by filing a motion in the family court in your area and it will be heard by a judge. Child Welfare can file this complaint if they deem it to be necessary after an investigation. The other manner would be to request opposing counsel (or the party, if pro se') to agree to adding a guardian ad liem, at which point a consent order would be drawn up, signed by both parties and entered to be signed by a Judge assigned to the case. Certainly when there are children involved, it is in the best interest of all parties to communicate their concerns directly or through counsel, as not to further inflame an already difficult situation. By attempting to utilize manipulative deceptions can and will only further break down trust and the ability to successfully co-parent, which will ultimately victimize the children.

The neighbor principle explains how we should apply reasonable care not to injure or hurt anyone, who comes into direct relationship with us or with whom we are involved with.

The concept of the neighbor relationship outlines the practical boundary in which we owe a duty of care.

The Motion to Enforce is a legal filing that requests a court to force someone to obey a previous court ruling.

Even though a counterclaim comes by way of an answer, you should consider like a complaint. You have 20 days to answer a counterclaim.

ANSWER:

Can you, I don't know what kind of law Tennessee has when it comes to adultery but you can ask a lawyer who specialize marriage or divorce and he can tell you about the do's and the don't. I hope this help.

All business law is based in the civil law system, unless the offenders actions cross the line into a criminal activity (e.g.: Embezzlement - Fraud - etc).

Negligence.

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