And Let’s Not Forget That The Supreme Court Leads

If a person dies without a Will the Court may issue a Grant of Letters of Administration. In most instances the Grant is made to the next of kin of the deceased. Letters of Administration de bonis non, Cessate Probate and Double Probate. Once you have determined the application you need to make you will need to prepare the application documents and file your application in the Probate Registry. For people who do not wish to engage a lawyer, the Supreme Court has prepared information kits for applicants in person which can be used as guides on how to apply. The kits are available on the Information Kits page. The Probate Registry has access to a record of all Grants issued by the Court. For finalised records from 1995 onwards, a search request should be made to the Supreme Court Probate Registry. For information on how to lodge a search request with the Probate Registry please go to the Searches page. For finalised records from 1825 to 1995 please enquire with the Tasmanian Archives and Heritage Office, located at 91 Murray Street Hobart. The information provided above is not intended to be legal advice. It is recommended that when seeking to apply for a Grant to administer the estate of a deceased that legal advice is obtained from a lawyer with expertise in this area of law. It is recommended you contact the Law Society of Tasmania.

377 F.3d at 580 n. 3. The drugs in Jacob were found in a duffel bag in the trunk of the car. Aside from his mere presence, there was no proof that the passenger was aware of the drug dealing. The drug presumption relieves the prosecution from having to make such a showing. Likewise, in United States v. Carter, 315 F.3d 651 (6th Cir. One of the problems with creating exceptions to the Fourth Amendment for drug cases is that, as we have seen in other contexts, exceptions rarely remain in the narrow context for which they were created. United States v. Marxen, 410 F.3d 326 (6th Cir. Marxen’s car matched the description of a car leaving the scene of a robbery, but Marxen himself did not match the description of the robbers. Nevertheless, after following him around for a week and not observing any illegal conduct or conduct related to the robbery the police pulled his car over to search it. Marxen was handcuffed and placed in a police car, even though there was not even reasonable suspicion that he had committed any crime.

In upholding this action by the police, the Court of Appeals cited to U.S. Foster for the proposition that using handcuffs does not exceed the bounds of a Terry stop. Foster, of course, was a drug case that relied for its holding on the drug nature of the offense. Nor are these all of the cases in this Circuit dealing with the drug exception, simply some of those from the last year. The trend has been on-going for years and shows no signs of slowing, let alone stopping. While the war on drugs has had many casualties, one of the more significant may be the Fourth Amendment. This is not to suggest that the Sixth Circuit is alone in this move away from Terry. If I had the time (and the constitutional fortitude), I’m sure that I could find similar cases in all Circuits. And let’s not forget that the Supreme Court leads, at least in this forum. ] While some courts have certainly rushed to follow the Court’s lead in Pringle, there would not have been such a rush if the Court had ruled with more respect for the rights of the citizens than the police. Lest we get too depressed at this point, let me just say that it is not my intention to send criminal defense attorneys rushing out to find a building to jump off of or a new country to move to. A lot of wrong exists simply because no light has been shone on it. ]), but it is time for us to use it as a sword of our own. We must always remember that in every case we have two clients – the man or woman at our side in the courtroom and the Constitution. As we have seen, we are the only ones in the courtroom who will be arguing to protect those freedoms that are guaranteed there. ] With that in mind, let us name the Drug Exception for what it is and work to oppose its spread. Keep up the good fight!

Protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution does not extend to any kind of evidence but only to self-incriminating statements relating to the charges brought against an accused. In order to bring the testimony of an accused within the prohibition of constitutional protection, it must be of such character that by itself it tend to incriminate the accused. Appellant is not an accused in the Police case and in fact a witness, whose statement was recorded under Article 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and, therefore, not entitled to a blanket protection. However, in case of trial in the Police case answer to certain question if tends to incriminate the appellant he can seek protection at that stage. Whether answer to a question is incriminating or otherwise has to be considered at the time it is put. Reference in this connection can be made to a decision of this Court in the case of State of Bombay vs. 6. We are of the opinion that for invoking the constitutional right under Article 20(3) a formal accusation against the person claiming the protection must exist. Simply because the appellant figures as the accused in the complaint case, a blanket protection as claimed by him cannot be granted. 9. As observed earlier the appellant is not an accused in the Police case and in fact a witness whose statement was recorded during the course of investigation under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 10. As regards the authority of this Court in the case of Nandini Satpathy (supra) the same has no bearing in the facts and circumstances of this case.

When a home seller misrepresents the condition of their home, it is typically not something that can be easily identified by a buyer. Most states have adopted rules that require Realtors and home sellers to provide specific disclosures to buyers. However, the false advertising by a home seller can have a devastating financial impact on buyers. When a buyer signs a purchase and sale agreement, they typically place a good faith deposit to secure the home. In addition, there are hours spent obtaining documents and securing financing. However, what is not always clear is what actually constitutes misrepresentation? Known defects – home sellers are required by law to disclose known defects. Easements – sellers cannot withhold known information regarding potential easements on property. Lead paint – federal law requires that sellers disclose lead paint hazards that may be present in the home. Structural defects – sellers who are aware of structural defects that may impact the stability of a property are required to disclose these defects per consumer protection laws.

It is important to note that advertising carries specific rules. For example, a person who is selling a home could not advertise they were selling a 4 bedroom home with 2 baths when they are actually selling a 3 bedroom home with 1 bath. This type of false advertising is uncommon and not the type that will generally create issues for the buyer as it is evident. While some defects may be readily evident, it is not always simple to prove false advertising by the seller. Consider what could happen if you moved into a new home and discovered that the electrical system was not able to support basic appliances because it was outdated, or that the plumbing was defective. Unless a seller has disclosed these types of defects, it could cost you thousands of dollars. Unfortunately, it could cost you thousands of dollars to go to court and sue for false advertising as well. There is a chance you will not win, as it is challenging to prove that the seller had advance knowledge of these conditions. In July of 2008,. the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that a buyer did not have a case against a seller for failure to disclose a sewer problem.

[B.S. KRISHNA MURTHY v. B.S. This is a dispute between brothers. In our opinion, an effort should be made to resolve the dispute between the parties by mediation. “I saw that the facts of Dada Abdulla’s case made it a very strong indeed, and that the law was bound to be on his side. But I also saw that the litigation, if it were persisted in, would ruin the plaintiff and the defendant, who were relatives and both belonged to the same city. No one knew how long the case might go on. Should it be allowed to continue to be fought out in court, it might go on indefinitely and to no advantage of either party. Both, therefore, desired an immediate termination of the case, if possible. I approached Tyeb Sheth and requested and advised him to go to arbitration. I recommended him to see his counsel. I suggested to him that if an arbitrator commanding the confidence of both parties could be appointed, the case would be quickly finished. The lawyers’ fees were so rapidly mounting up that they were enough to devour all the resources of the clients, big merchants as they were.

The case occupied so much of their attention that they had no time left for any other work. In the meantime mutual ill-will was steadily increasing. I became disgusted with the profession. As lawyers the counsel on both sides were bound to rake up points of law in support of their own clients. I also saw for the first time that the winning party never recovers all the costs incurred. Under the Court Fees Regulation there was a fixed scale of costs to be allowed as between party and party, the actual costs as between attorney and client being very much higher. This was more than I could bear. I felt that my duty was to befriend both parties and bring them together. I strained every nerve to bring about a compromise. At last Tyeb Sheth agreed. An arbitrator was appointed, the case was argued before him, and Dada Abdulla won. But that did not satisfy me. Hence, the lawyers as well as litigants should follow Mahatma Gandhi’s advice in the matter and try for arbitration/mediation. This is also the purpose of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Let the matter be referred to the Bangalore Mediation Centre.

Nanabhoy ( Nani ) Ardeshir Palkhivala was for many years the foremost lawyers in India. Born in 1920 in a blue collar family, Palkhivala worked his way up to the top from the bottom. When he began his career he had no godfathers in the profession: phenomenal energy, hard work and a fantastic brain was all he had, and as it turned out, all he needed to have. The environment in which Palkhivala grew and established his reputation was in the chamber of Sir Jamshedji Kanga – a towering legal personality. Palkhivala revered and devoted on his Senior. It was but natural then that a good deal of Kanga’s qualities would run off onto his illustrious junior: his phenomenal memory, his innate capacity, and his high sense of values. So successful was Nani Palkhivala in his profession that he had not yet turned fifty, the Chief Justice of India, Justice S.R.

Das, invited him to become a judge in the Supreme Court of India- directly from the bar, and honour which Palkhivala declined. If he had accepted he would have hopefully been in Chief Justice of India for an unbroken period of fifteen years. It might seem to be a mistake, but Palkhivala went on to become a huge success in legal profession and in public life. Palkhivala could hold the Supreme Court and the High Courts spellbound by his masterful advocacy and his persuasive oratory. No judge could resist the magnetic pull of his arguments. He single handedly wrote ‘Kanga & Palkhivala’s Commentary on the Indian Income Tax, while he was still young. Though his work is extremely elaborated and cannot be explained single handedly, but I would wish to present it in brief. Palkhivala represented India before the Special Tribunal in Geneva and before the International Court of Justice at the Hague. Palkhivala’s versatility was not restricted to the field of law, economics or public finance .

He became the Chairman of the ACC Group of Companies and was accepted as a leader in the world of business. He was also the Chairman of the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan’s “Sarva Dharma Maithri Pratishthan”,which enabled him to promote the ideology of Universal Brotherhood. He was also a staunch supporter of the Freedom of Press and, in fact, was on of the directors of Press Trust of India. In India, Palkhivala was one of the giant of the time. Above all, he was a public figure, a man of principles who strive to lead by example. He made his was up from , what by all accounts, was a middle class background not merely through the brilliance that God bestowed upon him but also through discipline, hard work and perseverance. I hope his life and story will remain an inspiration for all of us Indians, young and old, in times to come.

You have a right to refuse a drug test in Rhode Island Family Court. The Rhode Island Family Court is a civil Court and a RI Family Court Judge cannot force you to take a drug test. You have a right to refuse a drug test in Rhode Island Family Court. The Rhode Island Family Court is a civil Court and a RI Family Court Judge cannot force you to take a drug test. However, be prepared to suffer implications as a result of your refusal to take a drug test. A refused drug test or a no show to a proposed drug test is considered a positive drug test. The penalties for a refusal or a no show could include supervision of your visitation, loss of physical or legal custody of your child, suspension of visitation rights or other negative implications. The Judge could order you to attend drug or alcohol counseling in order to reinstate your visitation rights. Remember that Marijuana use is considered as bad as other drugs and could lead to an order of supervised visitation, loss of visitation rights or an order of supervised visits. The Rhode Island Supreme Court licenses all lawyers in the general practice of law, but does not license or certify any lawyer / attorney as an expert or specialist in any field of practice.

In May of last year I criticized a decision by a Louisiana Hearing Committee recommending a reprimand for an attorney based on the fact that his web page stated that he specializes in maritime personal injury and death cases. Fortunately, just a few days ago, the Louisiana Supreme Court showed some common sense and rejected that recommendation. But let’s back up to the beginning of the story. My problem with all this is that I see a clear distinction between claiming to be a certified specialist and simply using the English language verb “to specialize” in a sentence. How about saying “specializing in criminal defense” or “specializing in representing victims of accidents” and so on. Assuming it is true that this is their main area of practice, why bother spending time and money in a disciplinary process? I made this argument back in 2011 in reaction to a case from Indiana (here) and then again to the news about the case in Louisiana (here). Thankfully, the Louisiana Supreme Court made the right decision and reversed.

January 19, 2010, the Supreme Court GVR’ed in Vazquez v. United States, No. 09-5370, 2010 U.S. The Court remanded because the government’s position on the matter required reconsideration by the Court of Appeals. The Eleventh Circuit had held that the career offender guideline is distinguishable from the cocaine guideline and that this distinction gave the former guideline additional weight. United States v. Vazquez, 558 F.3d 1224, 1229 (11th Cir. Distinction was supposed to be based on Sentencing Commission policy vs. The Court remanded for reconsideration. The government conceded in its brief that appellate court had erred. Also, I may have posted before about United States v. Michael, 576 F.3d 323, 327 (6th Cir. Section 4B1.1(b) relies on the statutory maximum sentence to determine offense level. When crack cocaine is involved in an offense, the statutory maximum sentence is driven by the crack—powder sentencing disparity. Michael recognizes this issue and leaves the door open to this attack on the guideline. The impact of the disparity in career offender cases is recognized by jurists in other circuits beyond the Sixth. The Eighth Circuit implicitly recognized the impact of the disparity in United States v. Clay, 524 F.3d 877, 878 (8th Cir. That court noted, in the career offender sentencing context, that “the district court was authorized to consider the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences.” Id. In United States v. Welton, 583 F.3d 494, 502 (7th Cir.

197 billion, two-year state budget to Gov. Rick Perry, defending it against both those who call it too costly and those who say it shorts state needs. House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jim Pitts, R-Waxahachie, applauding the restoration of some school funding. 2 billion infrastructure fund to address long-neglected state water needs. Perry could veto bills in the package, and he has the power to kill particular spending items through a line-item veto. Many elements of the package were on his desk or on their way by late Sunday – although Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, briefly threatened to kill a tax break for businesses with a filibuster, in which he would talk until the deadline passed to consider it. Ellis has pushed for the Legislature to review existing breaks to gauge their value to Texas. House Bill 500 by Rep. Harvey Hilderbran, R-Kerrville, had been approved by the Senate on Sunday after surviving the brief threat of a filibuster by Sen.

A conference committee report for a proposal that criminalizes the use of drones for surveillance and permits Texans to document the activities of law enforcement personnel was adopted by both the Texas House and Senate late Sunday. House Bill 912 carries more than 40 exemptions, including one that permits members of the media to use drones to photograph and record breaking news activity. According to the Federal Aviation Administration, more than 30,000 unmanned aircraft are expected to be in use in the U.S. 2020. It now heads to the governor’s desk for approval. One exemption will need further clarification, said the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Craig Estes, R-Wichita Falls, before the Senate approved the measure 26-5: as it’s written now, one exemption states that the ban does not apply to residents who live within 25 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border. A call to special session — as referenced last week — remains imminent.