Law Questions and Answers
Can a non custodial parent be forced to pay for private college in unusual york state?
Answers: They can in almost every state IF the custodial parent can prove it is surrounded by the best interest of the child. Some states, for example Lousiana, allow the non-custodial parent to volunteer to take custody a bit than pay child support..you might see if NY have a similar law. Otherwise your best bet is to prove it is NOT within the child's best interest, or to point out that the other parent has CHOSEN to live contained by an area beside inferior schools and thus you should not be penalize.
You also cannot be forced to pay the integral bill, it is split in the proportions that child support is rewarded. So if you pay 65% of the child support, you would compensate 65% of the school. There are margins on how much they can order you to compensate; the federal credit acts prohibit more than 50% of the person's income human being taken for child support, unless there are arrearage, contained by which case it is 65%. Also, some states (for instance WV) set aside a 'reserve' for the non-custodial parent and consequently consider what remains. So check your state laws thoroughly, but this should contribute you some ideas.
By the instrument.New York public schools are considered some of the best surrounded by the nation; even some of the NYC public schools are award winner. So do some research! Here's a great start for you; this website gives respectively school's ratings, average grades, etc, and compares both public and private schools:
http://www.greatschools.net/modperl/go/N...
That depends on if you be paying for it, before the separation occur, and if it was court ordered after the separation, did you hold the finances available to support the private school. If you didn't enjoy any Orders mandating tuition fees for private schooling, than I would collide it in court. Just gross sure you have lawful cause and withdrawal of financing to prove your case. And the baggage can be fought in the place of rudiment if you haven't relocated out of the jurisdiction of the original Order. If the custodial parent relocated, you can own them summoned to appear in Original Court Jurisdiction, if you still reside nearby. You are only responsible for the looking after of minor within idea, and not custodial parents wishful upgrades. If you can't afford it, check Order and talk next to attorney to see if you can prevent unrealistic whims. Orders usually cover, support, insurance, medical and etc., religious and visits. Except for emergency, and mandated monthly support payments, the upbringing of minor is suppose to be discussed until that time any decisions involving change in university, visitation, and medical needs. If it be ordered, you're screwed, unless you can prove financial hardship.
My employer is treating its employees unreasonably, what can i do?
its a security guard company, we are not independent contractors we are lawful employees of the company. They don't deliver on anything promised, they name in more workers than they call for and send empire home. They hire people promising them x hourly rate and them cut it. I can quit but that wont solve the problem for adjectives of the other workers.Answers: Report them to the Better Business Bureau.
if they signed a contract agreeing to this, then you can't do anything but quit. (if that's not surrounded by the contract lol jk...well not really jk)
if they DIDN'T sign a contract agreeing to these undeserved things, SUE THEM TO INFINITY!!
Unfortunately, there's nothing you can do. Employers similar to this are unethical--but their actions are allowed. They will simply continue their practices. I fyou product toomany waves--they will fire you.
Your only remedy, realistically, is to leave. The simply possible alternative is unionization--but in a situation approaching this, that is not promising to be effective--labor organizations carry short shrift from the government at the moment.
organize a alliance. but be careful receive advise from a confederation organizer and work with him.
as long as nation show up for work can you blame the company for exploiting them ?
To get ansers that will be constructive & accurate you should at a minimum include what country you are talking in the order of. Employment law/rights are differen in every country & commonly within regions surrounded by a paricular country. More infomation from you will get better guidance.
I don't think you enjoy a leg to stand on, unless your company is represented by some type of union. Does not nouns, like a company I would want to work for. I would singular stay long enough until I found another brief. Sometimes, it seems a great deal easier to find a job first, previously leaving but next agian you never know when they are going to get rid of you. I suggest adjectives the employees, find another profession. Something, a little more stable, than that company. That is no process, to run a businss. They won't be around long, that is for sure.
Good luck.
check this relation its good
http://datentryworksworkathomeobs.blogsp...
.
Is graffiti supplies illegal to purchase surrounded by denver and co?
Answers: Yes, if you plan to use them to deface property. in some jurisdiction, it is illegal to deal in graffiti supplies to anyone under 18.
Why is the duty of care testing so important to the directive of Tort?
Answers: Torts fall into three undeveloped categories: Intentional, Negligent, and Strict Liability. Most adjectives torts fall into the category of negligence -- including medical malpractice, trial malpractice, slip and fall, premises liability, and automobile collisions.
At the heart of negligence is the concept of the duty of protection. What makes an dealing negligent is that it breaches the duty of fastidiousness. Obviously, the exact duty of care is different for respectively of the various torts, but determining what is the appropriate duty of charge for each type of circumstance and whether a do breached that duty of care is what determines whether or not here is liability for injuries.
Because..if there is no duty running between the party from one to the other, there can be no rescue for any breach or failure to make the duty so there can be no reclamation.
What is considered hearsay in the American Civil Court System?
Are Judges on Court shows on TV allowed to interpret what is to them hearsay as oppossed to a material Civil Court Judge or even other show judges?Answers: The above answers administer you the basic permissible definition of what qualifies as hearsay. There are two deep components of hearsay:
First, it is a statement made by someone other than the witness that the witness hear. For example, I testify that I heard my neighbor utter that he has a body buried surrounded by the back courtyard.
Second, it is a statement offered for the truth of the matter. In the above example, it would be hearsay if it be offered to prove that there be a body in the backyard. If evidence have been previously introduced that in attendance was a body within the backyard, it would not be hearsay if it was offered to prove that my neighbor know about the body self in the backyard.
As noted by the previous answers, near are many things that are considered exceptions to hearsay (mostly base on the assumption that the circumstances surrounding the statement make it reliable). In calculation, there are types of statements that are considered to be non-hearsay because they are not offered for the truth of the issue.
Hearsay can be a very tricky examine which is why a lot of cases find reversed on appeal on hearsay issues.
Obviously, tv judges are for a while bit exempt from the rules of a real court mediator (depending on how strictly the producers want to apply the rules). In addition, most tv law lords deal next to small claims cases. In small claims court, the rules of evidence are a little bit more relaxed than contained by a case involving a significant sum of money.
Any out of court statement, other than one made by the declarant, made within court to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
Exceptions to the hearsay rule when declarant is off limits:
Excited utterance - if someone yells "help" surrounded by a time of stress
Habit - if they do it all the time and there's a transcription of it known
Dying claim - right before someone dies they read aloud "sam shot me!"
business records - self explanatory
present circumstance conditions - "it's hot within here"
Those are exceptions because a reasonable human being is presumed to not lie surrounded by those circumstances.
Hearsay is when you are told by someone else what someone else did.
Person A tells you that Person B said he robbed a sandbank, it is hearsay if you tell a court that Person A told you. Person A can testify as the remark be told to him directly.
Hearsay is an out of court statement made by someone who is not under oath and it is admit to prove the truth of the statement. Hearsay is admissible if not object to and there are several exceptions to the hearsay rules that allow some hearsay to come in even if object to.
The judges on the tv shows are not surrounded by "real courts" and the inhabitants who appear on the shows agree to have their cases settled by whatever rules the tv show have. (They are usually also paid a payment for coming and/or the tv show agrees to pay your verdict if you lose).
In "real courts" courts rule on all trial matters. If in attendance is a bench trial (as opposed to a jury trial) the authority will also rule on the facts after hearing the evidence and to interpret the evidence surrounded by doing so.
Hope that helps.
Hearsay is an out of court statement (written or oral) offered to prove the business stated. It is considered unreliable because the person making the statement is not contained by court, under oath, subject to cross-examination.
There are oodles exceptions to the hearsay rule for situations where an out of court statement is considered to be reliable, such as someone making a "statement against interest" (uncoerced confession).
Judges on TV shows are handling small claims cases but not as legitimate court judges. They are private arbitrators, making a finding that both of the parties enjoy agreed will be binding on them and that will be recognized by the courts.
In arbitration, the rules of evidence can be relaxed or thrown out adjectives together, although a good arbitrator will follow the rules that hold been developed over centuries within our court system.
So, in answer to your question--yes, Judges on TV are allowed to interpret what is hearsay, beside more "wiggle room" than an actual sitting conciliator.
Hear say ...it is call the "he said , she said bullsh*t " on the street ...and TV is not real , it is staged ...Real Court will bust your @ss ..TV is more liberal resembling Ohio , you know in Ohio and on TV you can snuff your kid by leaving him surrounded by a hot car , if you are a college assistant Principal in a Benz you can carry off scott free ...but surrounded by reality , relations go to put inside , and that is why you can own different meanings to hear say aloud between reality , and TV ( and Ohio)
TV is forge , Real Court is real . and Ohio pretends it is sham when it is real resembling the opposite of TV... Confused Yet ..?????
It used to be more simple to explain , you have reality , and you have TV , then today Ohio join the reality divide .
Here are some links to information nearly hearsay in U.S. tenet:
http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/more-...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_...
The hearsay rule, and its 27 exceptions, are lawyer bull to force humdrum people to hire lawyer. It is impossible for the untrained person to work out these, and the basis for phony objection.
The hearsay rule is thievin' by thievin' judges contained by cahoots with their thievin' legal representative pals, feed the coffers of their campaign chests. It is a crime and a control of the property of the public, the law.
The trial is a competition of goblin tales spun by liars. It bear no ressemblance to any fact. The trial generate good attorney fees for the thievin' lawyer.
Things approaching hearsay tend to be admitted on the consider shows, because the parties involved aren't represented by lawyer. It's just resembling small claims court...the parties other represent themselves, and they basically merely tell the adjudicate their story, hearsay and all. It works differently than a trial involving lawyer.
What is the difference between an act and a bill?
Answers: An Act is legislation that have been approved by Parliament. Prior to this approval, it must be submitted to and debate in Parliament - when this happen it is known as a Bill. The bill is after debated and ultimately voted on, and if the majority are contained by agreeance it is passed and becomes legislation or an Act.
Is this an Australian grill?
Agree with the above. Debated, agreed - and received the Royal Assent. Royal Assent is the key.
Should the drinking age be lowered from 21 to 18/19?
As a 28-year-old who can legally drink, I read aloud yes. How stupid is it that think individuals are "adult" enough to be shipped rotten to war at 18, sent to prison at 18, but not developed enough to crack unstop a bottle of beer?Someone please give me one honest reason.
Drop the drinking age to 18 or at least possible 19. Fair is fair.
Answers: How much of your evening report is spent covering
''drunk driver dead/killed someone/needed rescue blah blah''
each hours of darkness ?
We have too several drunks out there NOW- no stipulation to add
teenagers to the mix.
Studies enjoy proven two things : alcohol kills brain cell, and
teen brains are NOT fully developed. You do the math.
You know, if Novak Djokovic, the third best tennis player in the world, have won the U.S. Open last Sunday, he would not enjoy been competent to uncork a bottle of champagne to celebrate. Djokovic is merely 20.
The 21 drinking age is absolutely goofy. To my practice, no other country has such a big drinking age. I agree that it it should be lowered.
I drank from the age of 15 'til about 23, mostly from 15 to 20 and I never drove drunk. It should categorically be lowered because of you make it permissible, those kids will drink less. Adults over 21 drink and drive too, for this reason, it has nil to do with age.
At the deeply least, the individuals in the military serving overseas should be allowed to drink at any age. 130 F contained by Baghdad digging a trench to protect those idiots in the Iraqi parliament and they are disallowed to have a cold beer or Jack and Coke? MADNESS!!
What should one expect to pay a family circle court attorney per hour?
Answers: The rate charged by a family advocate will vary depending upon the location and experience of the attorney. In substantial urban areas, family lawyer typically charge at least $ 250.00 per hour. In rural areas the rate may be as low as $ 75.00 per hour. Also, if the attorney have significant experience or is board certified that attorney will charge more. Also, be aware that most attorneys will charge a minimum fee and/or a retainer. Look within the phone book and call a couple of household lawyers. That will tender you a better idea of what to expect.
Depends.
Some big caliber lawyers syphone $$$ as much as they can .
heck even small town lawyer charge an arm and a leg.
$150 and up per hour. $150/hr is the rural country town cheap end. In a bigger city it will cost more.
The function for that is that surrounded by the rural areas the overhead to run a business is usally cheaper and they can afford to charge less.
That vary widely depending on a lot of different factor. If you are looking to hire one, you should call around to several and ask their rates and what they want for a retainer.
An ex-coworker filed a lawsuit against my employer do I own to testify if subpoenaed?
I am afraid if I testify I will be fired? Can I plead the fifth?Answers: do I have to testify if subpoenaed? - Yes.
I am afraid if I testify I will be fired? - Firing you because of your nouns is illegal. Your employer could find himself spinal column in court.
Can I plead the fifth? - Nope. You can individual plead the 5th during questioning by the police and merely if the answer would CRIMINALLY implicate you.
If subpoenaed , you enjoy no choice.
Unless you are contemplating jail possession!
You will have to testify, and you will enjoy to answer all question that are asked of you honestly.
the only instrument you and envoke your 5th amendment right is to avoid self incrimination..this means that if you detail the truth, that you will cause yourself to be guilty of a crime.
If your employer fires you for recounting the truth, then that's not really a place you want to work, in a minute is it?
It's the same as a court charge if you get a subpoena. You can singular plead the Fifth to avoid incriminating yourself -- don't get within trouble to protect your boss.
But bear within mind that if you have to testify, it will adjectives be on the record, and your employer will own a TON more problems if they fire you for obeying a court directive. Just calm down, and if you enjoy to testify, tell the truth, merely like you're supposed to. They won't fire you.
yes you dont hold to say anything but would you resembling them to say nought if it was you.besides if they fire you after your testamony sue the hell out of them
What do you think of revising the anti-monopoly law?
It seems to me that big corporations are circumventing the anti-monopoly laws by diversifying.Answers: In the crust of natural monopolies (utilities, telecommunications), one firm producing stuff or providing services is just more well-run. However, I do think inborn monopolies should be highly regulated to protect consumers from exorbitant prices.
I do own a problem with secure stores taking over entire towns so that small businesses cannot survive. In the town I just moved to, you primarily have two choices (Wal-Mart and Kroger) if you want to shop for groceries or household items. I've driven adjectives over town to find some smaller family - owned stores, but they've adjectives gone out of business. It just make me angry.
I think they are fine a moment ago the way they are.
In our intercontinental market, I'm not restricted by monopolization approaching our fore-bearers were.
g-day!
More Questions and Answers:
[2446] - [2066] - [1091] - [1498] - [2402] - [1193] - [389] - [2427] - [486] - [2058] - [1544] - [1401] - [2394] - [2175] - [526] - [196] - [1505] - [2570] - [604] - [1395]
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question: