Torts

No.

The U.S. cannot be sued by anyone, in any court, for any reason, without its consent. The government may be taken to court only in cases in which congress declares that the United states is open to suit.

Yes, it's called a "derivative action".

This is strictly up to the rules of the court in which the lawsuit is pending. Those differ from state to state.

It is when a court throws out only part of a lawsuit, usually on technical grounds relating to the dismissed portion only. If a complaint has two counts and plaintiff does not provide court ordered discovery on one of the counts, the court can order that part of the complaint be dismissed without presudice. This means that that part of the complaint may be reinstated if and when the discovery is produced, as long as the statute of limitations has not expired in the meantime.

If you have already reached the conclusion that there even is a duty of care, then breach is determined under a reasonable person standard. Essentially, breach is a determination of fact for a jury.

Anybody can sue anyone for anything. What you must be able to PROVE is - was the contractors board negligent or careless in allowing this to happen?

Why aren't you sueing the individual who fraudulently changed your license?

Yes, they are.

Yes, but HIGHLY unlikely. In a civil case the state is under no obligation to spend the taxpayers money to transport and guard the incarcerated individual involved in a civil trial.

he has up to a year to file and another year for response.

I am not an expert - but - for what it is worth, I would have thought they were not taxable, as they are not really earnings - they are payment to you to compensate for harm done to you.....however it is best to contact a tax expert or an accountant to advise you properly.


IMPROVE: It would also depend upon the state where you live, and if punitive damages were awarded. Typically, you are not taxed on compensatory damage awards, but you are on punitive damages (loss of consortium, mental anguish, etc.) that are awarded in addition to any compensatory damages awarded.

A "subpoena duces tecum." directs an individual to come to court and directs that certain items be brought with them. A 'regular' subpoena simply directs the individual to come to court.

This entirely depends on the forum in which you are in. In California, for example (where I practice), the time to answer is generally 30 days (just as with the initial complaint), plus some time for service (varies if mail, fedex, or hand delivered).

You would need to make a claim against the defendant's estate if there is one. You should seek legal advice of an attorney if the claim is substantial. An attorney can have an asset check performed to see it the defendant owned any property.

A void contract can be signed and upheld in court. However, this depends on why it was void to begin with.

Tort reform is aimed at civil lawsuits. Of these lawsuits, personal injury and medical malpractice are most affected by tort reform legislation. Issues addressed through tort reform include requiring the loser of a case to pay for the winner's legal fees, keeping supposedly frivolous suits out of court, and putting limits on certain types of compensation. But it is not cut and dry. There are pros and cons to almost every area of tort reform.

they got bumed by Dath Vader

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.

If the accusations come from a private person, you may sue for slander or libel, depending whether the accusations were oral or written. Damages in such a suit would be presumed because you are being accused of criminal behavior as opposed to just having bad character. If the accusations come from the government as criminal charges you are going to have to defend yourself against them. Pretty obvious, I know. If you are prosecuted you have the right to be told the names of your accusers before trial and to a copy of any statement that person gave to the police.

You would need to sue via their Trustee in Bankruptcy. Those are the people that know what the bankrupt party has as assets. You would commence the action in the usual way an action is commenced.

yes, fire the accuser. an employee has falsely accused you of racism, that is lying and can be considered a hostile act in the work environment.

More information:

A supervisor falsely accused of racism may fire the employee ONLY if the accusation was made deliberately with knowledge that the accusations are without merit. If after investigation and/or hearing on the matter, it is determined that the accusations did not amount to actionable racism BUT were made in good faith, the supervisor has no right to take any action.

Any adverse action taken against an employee after a finding that the accusations were made in good faith would constitute prohibited retaliatory action and the supervisor could be punished for that alone.

Good question, do you where the car is? If so, you can go get it yourself. Have you contacted the person and told them to bring it back? If you have, they wont, you can report it stolen in most states. If that doesnt apply, email me.

A class action IS a civil law suit, where many plaintiffs bring suit against one entity on their collective behalfs instead of just one person bringing suit on their own behalf.

It is possible. This answer first depends on the laws of the state which has jurisdiction over the suit. It then depends on the type of lawsuit it is. Typically, medical malpractice resulting in death is a Wrongful Death action. A Wrongful Death action exists to compensate the dependents of the decedent for the loss of income they would have received during their dependency on the decedent had the death not occurred. The parents of a married son are not dependents, therefore they suffered no loss therefore they have no standing to file a Wrongful Death action. Proceeds of a Wrongful Death action are not payable to the estate of the decedent. However, along with most Wrongful Death actions is what is called a Survivor Action. The Survivor Action is for compensation for the decedent's pain and suffering as a result of the malpractice. Had the decent lived, he would have the right to sue for pain and suffering to compensate him for that. The death of the person does not alter the fact that that action exists, otherwise the doctor would almost be better off if the patient dies than if he lived. The Survivor Action does not die with the decedent. The proceeds of the Survivor Action DO become part of the estate and are available for distribution to the intestate heirs or to the beneficiaries under the will. In the event that the parents are the sole beneficiaries under the will, they would be the ones entitled to the Survivor Action proceeds. The wife would have no standing to bring the action and perhaps not interest in it either. In that situation, the parents could bring a Survivor Action only; but the point is they could file "a lawsuit". In the event that the decedent died without a will, the proceeds would again go to the estate and be distributed to his heirs. Many state laws have provisions that if a person dies with a spouse but no children, then the decedent's parents might also receive part of the estate along with the spouse. Once again, if the wife decides against filing, and if the parents would be entitled to a part of the estate, then they would have standing to file a Survivor Action lawsuit to at least recover their share of the proceeds.