The Supreme Court Has Never Addressed This Issue

The judicial system of India is basically made up of the supreme court of India which stands at the apex of the entire country’s hierarchy. There are a total of twenty one high courts which are at the top of the hierarchy for every state. The India high court has a jurisdiction over the particular state or over the group of union territories and states or even over union territory. Below the Indian High Court there is the hierarchy of subordinate courts which are called as criminal courts, family courts, civil courts and other district courts. All the high courts of India are organized as constitutional courts through the Chapter V, Part VI and Article 214 in the Indian constitution. The Indian Supreme Court is the highest court for the entire country which is established by the Indian constitution. According to the Indian constitution, the role of India Supreme Court is the same as that of federal court which also acts as the guardian for the constitution of India. It is also the place for the highest appeal for any individual. There is also the patent law in India where the entire patent system of India is managed or governed by superintendence of the general controller of designs patients, India Trademark patent and also by the geographical indications. There are a total of four patent offices in India in which the head office if situated in Kolkata. Anyone can be granted patent for their products or services but it is important to follow the proper procedure. This can be better done through a professional lawyer in India.

India’s transport infrastructure, also currently the focus of large-scale investment, can frustrate day-to-day living. Most of the major metropolitan centres have relatively comprehensive public transport services that are cheap and affordable. Yet overcrowding here and on the roads can be a huge problem, resulting in persistent traffic jams, noise and air pollution. Companies with expatriate employees commonly offer a car or driver, often requiring an employee contribution, with provision varying at grade level. However, most Indians normally use public transport such as buses and over-ground suburban trains. Other forms of transport are motorized 3 wheelers (called auto-rickshaws) and taxis. In cities like Mumbai, there are taxis that are air-conditioned, but slightly more expensive. There are also extensive domestic air services between India’s major cities, which can be an economical way in both time and money to travel the country. The Indian currency is the Rupee (Rs). Eating out is inexpensive by western standards. Restaurants have grades and the cost will vary based on the grade. For example a pizza in a pizza restaurant can cost around £1.50 to £4. In Grade I restaurants, a meal for one can cost £6 to £15. Local Indian restaurants are much cheaper, with meals from £1 onwards. Most cities have Chinese restaurants. Business visas are normally granted for three or six months. These need renewing if the visa holder leaves the country. However, multiple-entry business visas for up to two years validity may be granted to technicians and experts going to India in pursuance of bilateral agreements or joint-venture projects having government approval, notes the Indian Embassy’s website. Application processing takes around 15 working days.

If religion is the opiate of the people according to Karl Marx, the Political Jaywalker says that Philippine election national or local is the cocaine of the people. A cheapo high I should say where people indulge in shallow highly partisan stupor not on party ideology or principles but on shallow bickering and personality. Who has the right or should people or any sector for that matter have any right to use or exploit the symbolism and spirit that EDSA 1 represent in any political campaign? Let us not be misled by claims that People Power emanated from a few elite families. As the name aptly suggests, the credit belongs to the people. Candidates running for public office should not bastardize the true spirit of EDSA by free-riding on the commemoration of this most important episode in our history. What they are doing goes against the very meaning of EDSA which is genuine democracy, the participation of civil society, and the empowerment of the Filipino people. Strong upright statement I should say coming from one who changes trapo loyalties as fast as she changes husband errrr dress surely makes one want to blurt out….

The nerve and hypocrisy is not even funny anymore or is it a lame attempt at humoring us? Stop romanticizing EDSA 1, while the phenomenon drove the Marcos conjugal dictatorship scampering out of the palace heading to Paoay errr Hawaii the succeeding political development was anti-climactic and a big failure. We have squandered whatever democratic gains that were achieved which is to be expected because it was purely the elites playing the game of musical chair. The left’s anti-Marcos propaganda just helped the trapos personality contest thus no meaningful reform occurred except for the democratic space. It did not occur to them that the people pouring out on the street will drive away a dictator for good and were caught by surprise just watching at the sidelines. Had it been a democracy movement that trapos and others now re-writing history according to their agenda we would not have seen numerous coup attempts during Cory Aquino’s presidency. Of course one can argue that there was one successful coup attempt during Estrada’s Jueteng National Republic but that is a different story and not the handiwork of the usual suspects. EDSA 1 is definitely not a franchise.

No particular group can claim to own it, I can agree to that but when Loren says it was all about genuine democracy she must be off her rocker. In the first place we just thought we are a democracy so where is this “genuine” democracy coming from? We were given a chance towards strengthening the democratic gains with the fall of the dictator but we squandered it and ended up getting worse as we change our presidents. We may have rid of the Marcos dictatorship but the trapos helped and encouraged little Marcoses to rise up again haunting us like ghost in abusing and ruling their localities like their fiefdom. Perhaps, Loren Legarda now regrets their prison convict orange party color, well no one will stop them if they use the color yellow in the same manner that Brother Eddie Villanueva uses it and yet no one is complaining. No one owns the spirit of EDSA 1 in the same manner that no one has the right to tell people not to use it. If they have a beef about it they should just use the occasion too and let us see how people will react. In the same vein it is up to the people and how they will treat the Liberal Party’s timing of their rally to coincide with EDSA 1 commemoration come election time. There is no doubt that people value the legacy of Cory Aquino. A bold move on the part of Noynoy Aquino to take on the shoes of his mother, will it be a good thing or a bad thing?

There is just one small problem with this suggestion: The word “strict” isn’t in the statute now. Any person who notifies the Authority that he or she was injured or has a cause of action shall be furnished a copy of Section 41 of this Act. But while the word “strict” is not used in §41, courts interpreting the statute have demanded strict compliance with the its provisions. Curtis v. Chicago Transit Authority, 341 Ill.App.3d 573, 793 N.E.2d 83, 86 (1st Dist. §41:Where the word “shall” appears in a legislative provision, the requirements of that provision are generally interpreted as mandatory. Our courts have consistently held that the section 41 notice requirement demands strict compliance and the burden of such compliance falls solely on the plaintiff. Regardless of the CTA’s actual knowledge of the facts pertaining to an injury, a notice missing a single element or containing an incorrect element is considered defective and requires dismissal.

In Curtis the fatal flaw was misstating the date of the accident that gave rise to the claim – by a single day. There was no question that the CTA knew about the mistake; it cited the correct date in an affirmative defense. And that’s when the CTA moved to dismiss. The motion was granted, and the dismissal affirmed on appeal. Curtis was again followed just this month in White v. Chicago Transit Authority, No. 1-05-3152 (Ill.App.1st Dist. Geneva White’s case is rather distinctive among §41 cases because her case actually came to trial. 220,220. It seems safe to suppose that – but for the operation of §41 – White’s case had some merit. White was hurt on May 30, 1997, when she slipped on an oil or grease stain while departing a CTA train. On October 8 of that year, White filed a §41 notice with the CTA. There was a small problem with this identification: Randolph and Washington are parallel streets; they do not intersect.

Nevertheless, the CTA did not assert the defect in the §41 notice, not right away. In 2002, White voluntarily dismissed her original 1997 case. Under Illinois law, a case may be voluntarily dismissed and refiled within a year even though the statute of limitations had expired long since. White refiled her complaint just before the end of 2002; the CTA asserted the defect in the §41 notice in response to the new pleading. It will surprise no one that the opinion in the new White case does not address why the CTA did not assert this defense earlier. Nor does the opinion state exactly when her original complaint was filed, only that it was filed in 1997. I speculate that the original complaint may have been filed within six months of the May 30, 1997 accident. Daven Curtis’ complaint had been filed within about five weeks of her accident in 2000, well within the six month notice period. Before the Curtis case it was believed, at least in some circles, that filing a complaint against the CTA within six months of an accident obviated the necessity of strict compliance with §41.

The plaintiff in Johnson v. Chicago Transit Authority, 366 Ill.App.3d 867, 853 N.E.2d 783, 790 (1st Dist. But, whatever the reason, when Geneva White nonsuited and refiled her case, the CTA had another chance to invoke §41. And this time the CTA did not miss that chance. The motion judge assigned to the case, however, Cook County Circuit Judge Diane Larsen, felt that the argument was raised too late: She found that the CTA had waived its right to invoke §41 (slip op. The CTA raised the issue again when the case was assigned for trial before Cook County Circuit Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman, and the CTA revived its §41 argument before her, but Judge Coleman wasn’t willing to second guess her colleague. Slip op. at p. The Appellate Court decided that Judge Larsen’s ruling was wrong (slip op. 220,220 verdict was thrown out. White’s other, unsuccessful argument on appeal was that the CTA failed to send her the notice required by the second paragraph of §41. This second paragraph was added by P.A. 90-451 , effective July 1, 1998 – over a year after Geneva White’s injury and seven or eight months after she first filed her suit.

But White suggested that the CTA had to serve a copy of §41 in connection with White’s refiled suit. The Appellate Court, however, found (slip op. We’ve already seen that the word “strict” is not found within §41. If this sentence only applied to the second paragraph in which it is found, it would seem superfluous. What need is there for liberal construction on this point? But that’s not how the Appellate Court saw it in the one and only case that so far has directly considered the applicability of the “liberal construction” provision of §41. In Yokley v. Chicago Transit Authority, 307 Ill.App.3d 132, 717 N.E.2d 451 (1st Dist. §41 motion was an allegedly inaccurate address where the accident took place. Myron Yokley was trying to get off a northbound bus in July 1993, but the bus started moving before Yokley was clear. The bus ran over Yokley; despite surgery and therapy, Yokley eventually lost his leg. Chicago. But 34th Street does not intersect King Drive. The Appellate Court affirmed – despite Yokley’s protestations that his §41 notice should be liberally construed in his favor. The Supreme Court has never addressed this issue. It would be interesting to see what might happen if it takes a look at White.

The lawyers and the advocates are as such important and respectable members of the society as the medical practitioners and the engineers. People do need their help and assistance when they have to sort out a legal issue which is impending in the court. Jus Novum is a one stop solution firm which deals with legal process that are outsourcing at Kolkata and that too in quick time with experts. Before moving on to the higher court for appealing, you should necessarily discuss on all the vital aspects and issues related with the case. Your lawyer will be a better person to inform you whether you should appeal or not depending on the chances of winning the case. It is advisable not to hide any secret or even any dark secret with your lawyer which can have an adverse impact on the case. It is a known and universal fact that the final verdict of the court is pronounced on the evidences produced before the court and the essential statements of the witnesses. If you have a strong evidence or proof in your favour then surely your case will become very strong and there is every chance that the judgement will be declared in your favour. In case you are still not happy with the verdict of the High Court, you can appeal in the Supreme Court of India in New Delhi. However, be very sure before appealing because this process is time taking and you also have to keep an eye on the budget. Today, a lot of important cases are pending in the court and so the Governments try to establish Fast Track Courts in order to speed up the process. In order to do the Legal process outsourcing at Kolkata you need to complete LLB and join some law firm before beginning your own practice.

Today, the Supreme Court ruled that unions cannot collect fair share fees from employees who do not opt in to union membership. While the decision means some unions will face a significant in drop in revenue, public safety unions are not expected to be as heavily affected. This court decision was widely expected given the makeup of the Supreme Court and some recent cases. California recently passed laws giving unions opportunities to reduce the impacts of the decision. The case is about agency shop agreements. In an agency shop, employees can chose to be full members of the union or decline union membership. But non-members still have to pay part of the cost of supporting the union. In some labor unions, non-members make up a big percentage of the employees covered by a contract. In most public safety unions, non-members are already a very small share. However, all unions should redouble efforts to provide high value to members and communicate with members about the benefits of union membership.

45 monthly fee to the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (“AFSCME”) was unconstitutional and infringed on his first amendment rights. Specifically, he argued that as a public employee his contract negotiations are with the government, hence those fees were a form of political advocacy. Based on long-standing precedent in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, all covered employees must pay a fee to account for the benefits of collective bargaining that unions offer. Those fees cover collective bargaining costs, such as contract negotiations, but not political advocacy. However, Janus claimed such a fee requirement violated his right to free speech, because those fees went to change government policy on salary, benefits, and pensions. Accordingly, his fees were a direct form of speech. On the other side, the union strongly advocated that Janus’s agency fees simply prevented “free-riding” from employees who benefit from the union’s negotiations. AFSCME argued that, because it was obligated by law to represent the interests of both union and non-union members, the fees were a way for employees to pay their fair share for contact negotiations for which they clearly benefited from. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court agreed with Mark Janus’s position.

Today’s ruling is a clear indication public sector unions must double their efforts to obtain full membership from their fair share bargaining unit members. Unions should clearly communicate about the many benefits of union membership, including the right to vote on a contract, lawyers for legal defense and the ability to vote in union elections. Other member-only benefits will vary from union to union. Non-members are not entitled to many of the benefits unions provide to their members. Unions should also be aware of new state laws designed to protect their rights. The Legislature passed Senate Bill 866 on June 18, 2018 and it is currently awaiting Governor Brown’s signature. The bill requires payroll deductions for union dues and makes the union, not management, responsible for determining member consent to union membership. This prevents anti-union employers from using Janus as an excuse to drop members from the rolls, but it also requires unions to be actively engaged. Senate Bill 285 prohibits employers from discouraging employees to join the union or trying to get members to drop their membership. Again, it require vigilance from union to enforce the law. Assembly Bill 119 gives unions the right to access new employee orientations and get contact information for new hires. To get the benefit of this law, unions must request to bargain over new member access. Since many unions, particularly in public safety, already have established policies and practices for new member orientations, this law sets the floor, not the ceiling for access. A number of other bills mitigate the immediate impacts of Janus and unions should develop a plan to maximize use of these tools and member outreach to retain and grow membership.

This is bad news for us progressives. The more I learn, the more Glenn Greenwald is making me nauseous. Consider how amazing it is that such a prospect is even possible. Democrats around the country worked extremely hard to elect a Democratic President, a huge majority in the House, and 59 Democratic Senators — only to watch as the Supreme Court is moved further to the Right? There will, of course, be some Democrats who will be convinced that any nominee Obama chooses is the right one by virtue of being Obama’s choice. But for those who want to make an informed, rational judgment, it’s worthwhile to know her record. I’ve tried here to subject that record to as comprehensive and objective an assessment as possible. And now is the time to do this, because if Kagan is nominated, it’s virtually certain that she will be confirmed. There will be more than enough Republicans joining with the vast majority of Democrats to confirm her; no proposal ever loses in Washington for being insufficiently progressive (when is the last time such a thing happened?).