The first "semi-regular" ask a lawyer thread

[kanrok]

Go ahead. Ask away. As a caveat (this is a legal word, meaning everything that comes afterwards is bullshit) be advised that I practice plaintiff's personal injury law, and was a criminal prosecutor for many years before that. As a consequence, if I do not know the answer to your post, I will guess, speculate and conjecture. So, you are properly warned. Ask away.

[unblock]

1. a plane crashes on the canadian-us border; where are the survivors buried?

[kanrok]

2. Oh. A trick question

Sort of like "who is buried in Lincoln's Tomb?" I Suspect you already know the answer to this one.

[punpirate]

3. Has tort reform...

... affected you or other lawyers you know? Have you decided not to litigate a case because the return is too small after expenses (expert witnesses, preparation, etc.)?

Just wondering because I think this is happening in Texas after medical malpractice reform there.

Cheers.

[kanrok]

8. Good question.

Actually no. I live and practice in the great State of Illinois. Tort "reform" was passed in 1994 but found unconstitutional by our State Supreme Court. Most lawyers who practice plaintiff's PI law are very careful about which cases they bring. Especially medical negligence cases, since they are so expensive to prosecute. It is arguable, though, whether tort "reform" has prejudiced the jury pool. I tried a case last week and it appeared as though none of the jurors in that trial were all that concerned about tort "reform."

[AngryAmish]

22. You forgot about the 80s med mal reform

Capping fees, affidavits of merit. That was all passed in a previous med mal panic.

[kanrok]

27. I was a prosecutor in the 80's

When I started doing PI work, I had to adapt to the laws that existed at the time. By the way, I don't disagree with the certificates of merit. They tend to do away with peripheral players. As for capping of fees, it works as well. We still can get a third if we perform exceptional services. Because med mal insurers make us take cases to the eve of trial, 1/3 is still the rule.

[AngryAmish]

33. Well

The certificates of merit - we all now how easy those are to get. Obviously it makes one think about one's case earlier and hopefully get a better handle on the negligence without going 2 years and realizing you have no case.

Last month a buddy had a petition denied even though we had already started. (I was 2d chairing). I feel guilty most of the time unless I get a verdict so I don't usually even bring the petition.

[kanrok]

35. Agreed

Gotta have the horses in a med mal case. Duty, breach and causation. IMHO opinion, if you have a weakness in any area the med mal defense bar will kill you. The juries have tremendous pre-loads in favor of doctors and hospitals. This is born out by the fact that plaintiffs lose 66% of the time at trial.

[mike_c]

4. women-- can't live with 'em, can't kill 'em....

What's the legal perspective on this quandary?

[kanrok]

9. Depends upon which state you live in

(he says, ending his sentence in a preposition).

[pres2032]

is a law banning polygamy unconstitutional?

what if it's the duty of Mormon men to marry multiple women or be eternally damned?

[kanrok]

10. I think not.

Although you will get an argument from those who believe legislating morality is wrong.

[pres2032]

13. you come to the same conclusion as Chief Justice Waite did in 1878

in Reynolds v. US. I'm writing a paper on it now, so it's on my mind.

he says that the gov't can never regulate beliefs, but it has every right to regulate religious actions, especially when they affect other people.

[kanrok]

25. A wise man, Justice Waite.

The question remains: who are the "other people" to whom Justice Waite's refers? The women who are victimized by this practice, or society as a whole?

[pres2032]

28. both

he argues that marriage is the basis of all society and that a society based on polygamy could never survive. But regarding religion in general, he says that any religious belief which harms people is wrong. You can't knowingly break the law and use religion as an excuse.

[kanrok]

29. You sound well prepared.

You should do exceptionally well on your paper. Good job.

[pres2032]

32. thanks

i'm almost done. hehe, it helps to have his opinion sitting in front of me. You could so cite this case in any present day case on gay marriages (in support) and the public display of the 10 commandments (little less clear, but in opposition).

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. Explain the Rule Against Perpetuities

in words of no more than two syllables. Extra points if you can make Dubya understand it.

[Lex]

7. Haha!

That one I like.

[kanrok]

11. Trusts cannot last longer than a life in being plus 21 years.

Now explain the Rule in Dumpor's Case in less than 14 words.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

30. How's this?

Landlord's consent to one lease assignment = consent to all subsequent assignments.

Now, you do The Rule in Shelley's Case.

[kanrok]

36. Ouch.

My head hurts. Here you go:

SHELLEY'S CASE, RULE IN, an important decision in the law of real property. The litigation was brought about by the settlement made by Sir William Shelley (c. 1480-1549), a judge of the common pleas, of an estate which he had purchased on the dissolution of Sion Monastery. After prolonged argument the celebrated rule was laid down by Lord Chancellor Sir Thomas Bromley, who presided over an assembly of all the judges to hear the case in Easter term 1580-1581. The rule may be stated as follows: when an ancestor by any gift or conveyance takes an estate of freehold and in the same gift or conveyance an estate is limited, either mediately or immediately, to his heirs or the heirs of his body, in such a case the word " heirs " is a word of limitation and not of purchase; that is to say, the estate of the ancestor is not a life or other freehold estate with remainder to the heirs or heirs of the body, but an estate in fee or an estate tail according to circumstances. The rule is a highly technical one, and has led to much litigation and in many cases without a doubt to the defeat of a testator's intentions. It is said to have had its origin in the wish of the law to preserve to the lords their right of wardship, which would have been ousted by the heir taking as purchaser and not as successor. The rule is reported by Lord Coke in i Reports 93 b. (see also Van Grutten v. Foxwell, 1897, A.C. 658). In the United States the rule in Shelley's case was at one time in operation as a part of the common law, but it has been repealed by statute in most states.

As you can see, this is NOT my work product.

[Floogeldy]

6. What does the Ninth Amendment mean?

How does it relate to Federal powers and the Tenth Amendment?

Has it ever been cited by the Supreme Court Of The United States?

Thanks,

Floog

[kanrok]

14. Here ya go:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment09/

The Supreme Court has discussed the Ninth Amendment in Griswold v. Connecticut. See below:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=381&invol=479

[Floogeldy]

17. That's pretty vague

I was hoping that you, a lawyer, could enlighten me with your vast knowledge. Especially, the relationship between Federal powers and the Tenth Amendment.

Thanks in advance,

Floog

}(

[kanrok]

19. You make the common mistake

of believing that lawyers possess vast knowledge. I may be the rare lawyer who will tell you "I don't know" if I truly don't know.

[Floogeldy]

23. How long have you been a lawyer?

You did take Con-law in school, right?

}(

[kanrok]

24. It'll be 20 years in November

Yes, I did take Con law in law school. 22 years ago. I also took Trust & Estates and Corporations, and many other courses. Many of which I don't remember a whit about. Esoteric questions are fun, but really, what is the purpose?

[Floogeldy]

26. I understand

To hell with the Lounge Lizards.

}(

[ret5hd]

12. would you be interested in a job as piano player in a cat-house?

just kidding.

[kanrok]

15. Yes.

Except I cannot play the piano.

[democracyindanger]

16. Have you now, or ever

done a TV commercial where you're seated on the corner of a prop desk while your telephone number is flashed on the screen?

[kanrok]

18. Absolutely not

I believe lawyers have a right to be as tasteless as they want to be, but I would never, nor have I ever, advertised my services. Strictly word of mouth. I HATE legal advertising.

[CanuckAmok]

20. Where the hell have you been?!

Where were you in January 2004?!

[kanrok]

21. Stunned

like everyone else.

[CalebHayes]

31. Is it really legal to threaten someones life as long as they aren't...

a elected official?

[kanrok]

34. So long as you have the present ability to do so

I would say it is never a good idea to do so. Is it "legal" to do so? It is an "assault" if you threaten to do so presently. It doesn't matter if it is an elected official or not. Whether a prosecutor decides to file a charge is within his or her discretion.

[seg4527]

37. this is actually imporant and personal, so i'm looking forward toyourreply

I know this isn't your exxpertise, but i really need advice, so i'll ask anyway

Someone takes over somebody elses lease for an apartment. The lease doesn't actually specify the amount of money to be paid, which that someone thought was odd, but really needed some place to live. He was told he'd pay 920 a month. The next day he is told he would have to pay 1035, because thats' what the person before him was paying. He decided to let it go, because he really really needs somewhere to live fast. When he's been there a week, he gets a notice addressed to the former resident that his monthly rent of 990 is late. That's not my question though.

This is:

He was also told that even though the lease goes through August, he can pay a 200 dollar lease transfer fee or something to have the lease only go to may, which is all he needs it for. It doesn't say anything about that in the lease, but he accepts the Apartment Complex's word. A bit later he goes to the office and asks about this lease transfer fee, and they tell him he was misinformed, and that he is responsible for the 1035/month rent through august. Is there anything he can do?

[kanrok]

38. Sorry I didn't get back to you last night

I went to bed before I read this post. As you indicate, this is not my area of expertise, but I'll give it a shot anyway. My understanding of lease agreements is that anything with a term of less than one year is interpreted as a month-to-month lease. What this means, in practical terms, is that the person who is in control of the place being rented can be charged anything he/she (the lessor)wants to charge each month. So, the rent can go up, go down, or remain the same. What you have described is a "sub-lease." Very popular in college towns. The answer to your ultimate question is very much dependent upon the language in the lease. If you signed an agreement to sub-let the apartment until the end of the original term (something that the Lessor would be very interested in doing) than chances are you are stuck with the rent, unless you can, in turn, sub-let your responsibility. The only "out" is potentially that because the agreement you signed did not include a set rent (which I believe is necessary to a proper contract), the sub-lease is void, and you can pay until May and leave without penalty, since you are on a month-to-month lease. Understand that lease agreements are subject to local state contract interpretation. If you have problems with the apartment complex, there should be a legal clinic on campus that can give you some assistance in this matter. God luck.