Law Questions and Answers

Small Claims Garnishment?

I won a small claims court case against my ex fiance. He didn't appeal in the 30 days allowed by the state of Nebraska, so I filled out the tabloid work at the court house to garnish his payment check. Two days ago I got awareness (I sent it certified mail and they signed for it) that his employer recieved the garnishment paperwork. Does anyone know how long it will be until I start seeing my money?
Answers: I would say-so at least until that time the end of Ocotober, but possible before consequently. It also depends on how he gets remunerated (weekly, bi-weekly).

Is it legal for a party to harass another by taking video minus their consent, even if video taker's home?

The person is blatantly taking a video of a personality, that already stated did not want to be video taped (the being was a company for another person that lives within the home). The visitor be neither stealing or causing any problems to the creature videotaping. The company was here to help a relative and supply the relative (person that lived in the home near the video taper), a ride to safety. In other words, a creature has the right to pester and mentally abuse another in recent times because that person is surrounded by his home?
Answers: Every state has different law. In New York here is the penal laws for annoyance.

Section 240.25 Harassment in the first point

A person is guilty of annoyance in the first amount when he or she intentionally and repeatedly harasses another soul by following such person contained by or about a public place or places or by adjectives in a course of conduct or by repeatedly committing act which places such person surrounded by reasonable anxiety of physical injury. This section shall not apply to happenings regulated by the national labor relations act, as amended, the railway labor achievement, as amended, or the federal employment labor management accomplishment, as amended.

Harassment in the first level is a class B misdemeanor.

Section 240.26 Harassment in the second point

A person is guilty of nuisance in the second amount when, with intent to bother, annoy or alarm another person:

1. He or she strikes, shoves, kick or otherwise subjects such other person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do alike; or

2. He or she follows a person within or about a public place or places; or

3. He or she engage in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits act which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no lawful purpose.

Subdivisions two and three of this section shall not apply to accomplishments regulated by the national labor relations act, as amended, the railway labor work, as amended, or the federal employment labor management conduct yourself, as amended.

Harassment in the second scope is a violation.

Section 240.30 Aggravated hounding in the second level.

A person is guilty of aggravated irritation in the second scope when, with intent to annoy, annoy, threaten or alarm another person, he or she:

1. Either (a) communicates beside a person, anonymously or otherwise by cell phone, or by telegraph, mail or any other form of written communication, contained by a manner predictable to cause annoyance or alarm; or (b) cause a communication to be initiated by mechanical or electronic funds or otherwise, with a creature, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, or by telegraph, messages or any other form of written communication, in a comportment likely to produce annoyance or alarm; or

2. Makes a telephone ring up, whether or not a conversation ensues, near no purpose of legitimate communication; or

3. Strikes, shoves, kick, or otherwise subjects another person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do equal because of a belief or perception regarding such person's see, color, national origin, ancestry, masculinity, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation, regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct; or

4. Commits the crime of singling out in the first scope and has previously be convicted of the crime of harassment within the first degree as defined by branch 240.25 of this article within the preceding ten years.

Aggravated singling out in the second point is a class A misdemeanor.


Section 240.31 Aggravated harassment within the first degree.

A individual is guilty of aggravated harassment within the first degree when beside intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another entity, because of a belief or perception regarding such person's see, color, national origin, ancestry, sexual characteristics, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation, regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct, he or she:

1. Damages premises primarily used for religious purposes, or acquire pursuant to section six of the religious corporation directive and maintained for purposes of religious instruction, and the desecrate to the premises exceeds fifty dollars; or

2. Commits the crime of aggravated harassment contained by the second degree contained by the manner proscribed by the provisions of subdivision three of unit 240.30 of this article and has be previously convicted of the crime of aggravated harassment contained by the second degree for the commission of conduct proscribed by the provisions of subdivision three of paragraph 240.30 or he has be previously convicted of the crime of aggravated harassment within the first degree inwardly the preceding ten years.

Aggravated harassment surrounded by the first degree is a class E felony.
Why would you prudence??
Just a video
Honestly, I think so. If they're waiting for someone, they can dally outside...it's a freedom of speech thing. It wasn't a clandestine video and even those Nanny Cams are legal.
As long as they communicate you they are taping you, in that is not much you can do about it but move their property. Legally there is no law being broken. Same piece with tape a person on the phone as long as you speak about them as soon as the conversation starts. Why do you think every service hail as says matching thing when you beckon?
no, it is a violation of their privacy if it involves videotape. I would really love to read more details on this. what does a ride to safety stingy exactly? what kind of risk are we talking here?
Yes,
It depends on the state, but the imperative is pretty much "A man's home is his or her castle."

Filming you was unlawful, provided you were past its sell-by date of their property. Once you step one foot on their property though they can film you as much as they want, next to or without your authorization.

Now I don't know the details of the case, but it sounds similar to you were any rescuing a spouse or an elderly person from possible mar inside of that home. In that case, while the video cassette might be admissible in court, the jury would be on your side.

The party inside of the house, who was film you, has the right to badger you since you were within their house and on their property. Of course what you did on that tape will determine if it have any value within court or not.
No, they don't have the right to stress out anyone anywhere.

What is the term for when a product is specifically designed to break down after so long?

i.e. you purchase a saloon that is specifcally designed to break down after seven years so you are forced to purchase a foreign car. or your cell phone mysteriously dies a month past you are eligible to break your contact, so you are forced to buy a new cell phone from alike company, thus renewing your contract for another 2 years
Answers: Planned obsolescence.
"American made"? LOL

Law Question?

Adam found a human toe in a tin of chewing tobacco manufactured by Happy Chewers, Inc. The sticky label on the tin stated “Guaranteed Good and Pure.” There also was a picture of a bullish man chewing tobacco. List the causes of management Adam has against the tobacco company, and argue whether he will win or lose respectively cause of undertaking.
Answers: Breach of express warranty, because the label expresses an affirmation as to the contents of the tin.

Breach of implied warranty of merchantability, because human toes do not pass by in the trade as tobacco minus objection.

The preceding claims will most likely go wrong, because Adam is not in privity of contract beside Happy Chewers. He could successfully assert these claims against the tobacconist who sold him the toe-laden tobacco.

Negligence. The presence of the human toe in the can indicates that Happy Chewers be careless surrounded by packing the can. Adam may succeed because under the rule of McPherson v Buick Motor Car Company, want of privity is not a defense to a claim of inattentive manufacture of stock. Whether Adam will succeed will depend on showing that Happy Chewer's practices fall short of the standard of exactness, which cannot be established on the record as presented.

Strict Tort (302A) Liability will not not tell the truth because Adam did not eat the toe and have no demonstrable bodily injury.
Ditto to the 1st answer! Wait until you have to business with a hypothetical within INTERNATIONAL LAW!

Hopefully you are NOT in ruling school, we hold enough idiots floppy shingles already!
Unless he can prove that the toe in interview was neither "good" nor "pure", he have no cause of goings-on at all. It's credible that the toe was sent through cleaning, so it is as pure as the rest of the product. "Good" is so subjective, he'd enjoy to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it wasn't as good as the average toe found within a can of chewing tobacco.

Will using Duke Ellingtons music violate any copyright laws?

I am putting together a 1 minute video montage for a client of mine and she suggest probably putting a Duke Ellington song to it. I want to make sure I do this right as it may be used for a promotional video. Am I violate any copyright laws if do this even though he is passed away. Is their a website that explains copyright law when it comes to music and that is flowing to understand? I see video mixes adjectives over youtube that have unsullied songs put to them and I highly doubt they enjoy permission. Thanks.
Answers: If it is for scholastic purposes then probably not. Also, and I might be mistaken, but I deliberate that it has to be a persuaded length (i.e. 30 seconds) in direct to violate copyright laws. You might want to do somewhat bit of research on this.

Try out the US Patent and Trademark Office website:
www.uspto.gov
The copyrights for his music is probably held by the publishing company. They do not expire simply because the artist died. Most everything posted on uTube violates at lowest one copyright. You would need to gain permission from the copyright holder.

How do you nail a cop for rape on someone who is passed out?

friends go out drinking, crashed at cop friends house.
Answers: File a complaint.

The prosecutor takes it from within.
just approaching anyone else, get DNA tested (rape apparatus at a hospital) and they will id him.

doesnt business who he is

Papers from a Corporate meeting aphorism a price that we agreed on to sell the business?

We have a verbal agreement and also agreed on a price to supply the business at a s corporate meeting. Is this corporate tabloid a legal document .See have testified surrounded by court that she was going to buy me out.
Answers: Depends on what else the composition said. The biggest clue would be if they ever deposited a down payment contained by a escrow account on your behalf. If they haven't consequently it was not a public sale agreement. It could have be just an agreement on what the mart price would be, if they decide to buy.

Why arent they talking to me?

This guard at my career said I said something sexually.My job took me rotten the schedule. They said it be for certain amount of time and they lied. They arent relating me anything. They didnt give me anything within writing.What can I do. I havent responded either. I lately went to my coalition. They didnt ask me anything.
Answers: Be careful what you enunciate on the job. Sign up for severance, they will find out.
Find a new livelihood and then phone your local Dept of Labor and tell them what happen.

Should the death cost be banned? and does it really work as a deterrent?

Answers: It doesn't work as a deterrent, frequent innocent people are kill every year for lack of a gala trial...

It makes up for a bloodthirsty and injust society...
What's the point of killing someone if they're person given life already? They don't constitute a difficulty for society anymore...

Death penalty is a proof of the disaster of the Judicial System.
It is only a deterrent if USED. not threatened.
I deem they ought to make it publicized
Actually it have been proved not to be a deterrent at adjectives
Should it be banned? No ! some associates just deserve to be kill. Ex. Murderers (eye for an eye), rapists, etc

I agree with bulletbob36

the average character on death row spends 19 years nearby before individual put to death and costs Tax payers $36,000.00 a year per disappearance row inmate, multiply that by 19 years!!!!
It is banned, contained by the UK.

Having said that nobody receiving the departure penalty ever re-offended!!!!
It doesn't work as a deterrent, a moment ago look at the people who commit crimes to warrant it. Every any developed country banned the annihilation penalty years ago.

Better to consent to them rot in prison than departure, which is the easy method out.
Yes. And the Crime Rates in England and the EU contained by general are ridiculous. Congratulations on not have anything to defend yourselves beside, either. Brilliant work, that.

Capital Punishment WOULD work, if it be universally implemented. The problem near the world today is, no one FEARS consequences. Punishments are surrounded by most cases laughable in comparison to crimes.

Do the proper DNA trialling to insure the convicted DID the crime. When it comes back positive, turn them into fertilizer for the public parks systems. At tiniest they will do ONE worthwhile thing next to their miserable lives.
if they hang you for murder i promise
you wont do it again.
The argument for deterrance is up for debate, but it have been proven to cut the rate of recidivism to 0% for those who receive that sentence.
I think government should not kill ethnic group. It is shown not to work as a deterrent to others (though those executed tend not to repeat their offense).
In a modern country it should be banned. Especially if that country preaches to the rest of the world,'double standards'.
However if someone kill a child or spouse of mine then I would want to opening them limb from member and not let them keep on on death row prolonging the agony of the victims family!
No and no it doesn't work as a deterrent. The only problem near the death cost is to make sure that the soul was guilty. I come up with that if there be a fool proof way to do this next 99%+ would support the death cost
I agree with Shannon.. and BulletBob...the release penalty solely works as a deterrent - if it is enforced.

I live in California and I sit on a jury for a murder trial for over 6 months. We convicted the guy.then we have to decide between Life or Death.some of the question we addressed be:
when on death row...does the inmate return with use of computer, tvs and radios in cell, what types of ammenities does he draw from.

we were assured by the DA that he would gain none of those things! LIAR...we gave him the destruction penaly and NOW i see that he has access to the computer, he have web page asking for help, he have full privledges...he has it VERY flawless.
WE as tax payers bestow him a place to live (rent free), 3 meals a time, he gets money, he can move about to the library, use the computers, has a tv etc contained by his cell.he lives nicer than alot of people...except that he is locked up! DEath Penalty? HA...when be the last time California put anyone to destruction!

We (the jury) are apalled at our decision...have we been told the truth...he would have been given natural life without parole...result in that is really what he is serving within San Quentin.

"The Only way Death Sentence will work is if it is enforced"...if it is not going to be enforced.win rid of it.

thanks
No it dosn't work. In my opion its not that much of a deterrent.
You hold the left wing that want to reorganization everyone give them strength care, $1.000,000 and a topical Cadillac and buy them all sand house in Maimi, and New Orleans. If things where on earth the way they where on earth in some of the Arab countries we would not own the problems we do. Caught stealing you lose a hand, you put to death someone you die with within a couple of hours of being found guilty. Not this 25 years on disappearance row. This is about the individual good entity about Muslim religion. You would enjoy the gang problems. Teach respect for life and you will receive respect.
The Uk should bring rear legs the death cost perhaps next there in attendance will be justice for thoses who hold lost family to the trash that kill.
How various repeat offenders do you hold after the death cost?

Do you honestly think NOT have the death cost is any greater of a deterrent? A sane society eliminates its maniacal murderers.
I'm surrounded by England and we do not have the passing penalty.If it worked as a deterrent why are so lots people serving vivacity and triple life sentences contained by the U.S.? Obviously it does not act as a deterrent.
It may prevent populace from re-offending but does not act as a deterrent.
I believe the crime rate is complex in the U.S. than here so the loss penalty unquestionably does not ensure the crime rate is reduced.

I sold an item for cash. There be no bill of sale issued. Now buyer desires money back.?

The item contained by question be a musical instrument I had advertise online. Buyer was glowing with the item when they view it & immediately salaried me cash for it. There be no Bill of Sale asked for or given. They now utter that they could have bought this same item considerably cheaper somewhere else & want their money pay for. If I do not want to refund it, they are threatening to run me to "small claims court". This was a private Dutch auction. I do not sell items as a business. Am I obligated properly to refund the money. I get the impression they got a large amount & for some reason they newly need their dosh back. Thanks.
Answers: You are not in somebody`s debt to refund money at adjectives for any reason, beneath Canadian law anywhere contained by Canada. Even a commercial business doesn't have to, as long as the products and/or service was done or deliver as claimed in writing or vocally (verbally is extremely hard to prove). Just because somebody finds something cheaper weeks subsequent or when ever, doesn't entitle them to any refund what so ever. If that be the case EVERY business would hold you sign a legal hesitate in effect of that on every item bought. On a personal classified, private, non commercial public sale of an item, it is buyer beware unless stated otherwise according to Canadian law. If you do market items often or want to hold this guy happy you could get together him half route.
Personally for me, it was what the party AGREED to and PAYED so they would be SOL, as they are a careless shopper it's not your responsibility to pay for their foolishness. He be not forced into it under any gentle of duress. (ie, at gunpoint or any other threating manner) It just similar to buying cars, homes or anything when the exact same thing can be found at adjectives sorts of price levels. Just look at any printed medium and see what we pay for them compared to everywhere else for items mostly printed here. Poof in that is NO LAW protecting buyers in Canada. Tell him their is no such imperative to date protecting him from fair open market price of any said item, as long as the tax be paid for on the item. Tell him as you sold it for smaller number than you bought it for, no profit was made and no toll to claim is requiered on this item sale. No bill of public sale will fail to craft it through any civil court in the western world. The come to an end bill of your lawyer and court cost will be at his expense as he have NO case so expect it to be that track.
He's simplely mad and hopes to alarm you with idol threats that cannot be in motion anywhere but to more bills for him to pay for the item, that he think is pricey enough already. One time he might grow up and take the hit close to we all hold at one time or another, and not cry like a tot. The gas pump come to mind for us all everyday.
No bill of public sale, no sale took place.

Possession is 9/10ths of the ruling. You posses the money, they posses the instrument. Even if they had a receiving, was in attendance a "money back guarantee?"

Case closed.
Bummer - guess he should own researched what he was buying previously he bought it.

He is SOL on this one - you are under no condition to pay for his mistake.
Two words to them:

Buyer Beware.

You aren't Walmart.

Let them bear you to small claims court. They will lose.
Since the item is not faulty and no "money vertebrae in 30 days save satisfied" was given, tough cookies. If I buy something on E-bay and salary too much, I sure don't get the difference backbone. This guy learned a lesson and so did you. In the adjectives have a bill of mart stating "all sale final".

Tell the guy to pound sand. A judge will snigger him out of court.
Without any documentation they do not have a bag. You are under no requisite to refund the money.
I you choose to return the money, receive sure the musical instrument is in indistinguishable condition it was contained by when you sold it. It may have sustained some bring down while they had it.
No. you do not own to give the money vertebrae. You sold a quality product for an agreed upon price.
If this individual had attended an auction. next to my friend who is a licensed auctioneer. and came wager on asking for their money back... my friend would titter in their obverse and say... "Well, thats only the way it go sometimes. If you could have found it cheaper at the time, you wouldn't own bought it from me."
I would laugh and communicate them "Nice try buddy."
Then go on next to my life and NEVER hand over it another thought.
You are not Wal-Mart. Tell them 'No way.'
Then reply "Then you should enjoy done your research before purchasing" and it's a done business deal.

Let them sue you if they feel resembling looking the fool in court.
If the party saw, touched, and played the item, the sale is final and no compensation is due. If he plans to take you to court, you might want to remind him that:

1) if he loses, he will be responsible for the costs.
2) If you own to take a daylight off to shelter yourself, he may be liable for any expenses you incur due to his frivolous lawsuit.

Chances are it's just a bluff. I have to take someone to court over a sports car accident once, and even though it be a small claim, it took months to resolve. I won, because he didn't show up, so bear that surrounded by mind.

More Questions and Answers:
[1403] - [340] - [2341] - [2392] - [1234] - [2257] - [450] - [1446] - [1641] - [734] - [926] - [1334] - [671] - [411] - [360] - [228] - [150] - [994] - [1751] - [1880]

The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.

Answer question: