North Dakota Recent Legal Answers from Lawyers

I am sorry to hear about these problems you have been experiencing.  However, unless you actually suffered damages as a result of  the actions of the doctors, nurses and/or hospitals, then you will not have a case.  You must suffer actual harm and/or monetary damages as a result of them giving you the lidocaine.  It doesn't sound like they ever gave you any (thank goodness - and only because you were so diligent), and thus, without some kind of harm or damages, you will not have a case. Best of luck. NOTE:  This response is general in nature and should not be considered legal advice.  No attorney client relationship exists or is formed by this information.  ... Read Answer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nx3vNhROTss&feature=related This is not intended to be legal advice, and is general in its nature. No attorney-client relationship exists or is formed by this information. Furthermore, this does not represent the views or opinions of LexisNexis or its affiliated companies.... Read Answer

The police are required to advise a suspect of his or her Miranda Rights before questioning when the suspect is in custody or a custodial setting. A custodial setting is one in which a person's freedom of movement is restricted and a reasonable person would not feel free to leave. If this 18 year old was not in custody or a custodial setting at the time of questioning, his responses as to his involvement in the offense can be used against him. Conversely, if he was in a custodial setting at the time of questioning, and he was not advised of his Miranda rights or did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his rights, his responses cannot be used against him. However, a violation of Miranda rights does not require the dismissal of charges. Violations only results in the suppression of the suspect's statements, meaning his responses cannot be used against him at trial to prove the crime. Charges may still be brought if there is evidence independent of the improperly obtained statements. In other words, if the police have evidence independent of the 18 year old's statements with which they can prove the criminal trespass, even if his Miranda rights were violated, they can that use that evidence to charge and convict. An example of independent evidence might be where others were involved in the offense and when questioned, they told the police the 18 year old was a participant. It would be lawful for police and prosecutors to use the others' statements. Similarly, if the police lawfully obtained physical evidence that linked the 18 year old to the crime, that evidence would be admissible, even though there had been a Miranda violation. Jeralyn Merritt, Ask a Lawyer Panelist since 1998.  ... Read Answer

First you should have a local attorney look at the contract for you. This way they can tell you if the contract terms are, in fact, what you expected. The attorney would be able to tell you if the decorator is entitled to those charges or not. Next, if she is not entitled to the charges, there is actually no breach of contract unless she quits or refuses to complete the contract. Simply asking for extra payments isn't a breach, by itself.  Something you can do right away is to demand "reasonable assurances." You demand reasonable assurances by sending a letter stating that you do not believe that you are required to pay the extra charges, and ask if she still plans to fulfill the promise of working the wedding without those actual payments. With no response or a response of no to this letter, it would put you on a much better legal ground to receive your deposit back.  At this point you could sue for a breach of contract and seek the return of your deposit.  You should know, however, that the question of "who breached first" is critical here, and it is usually very dependent on the circumstances of your case.  Therefore an attorney should help you prepare the letter, as well as evaluate the contract.... Read Answer

Yes, I think you need a lawyer. Driving under suspension in most states carries mandatory jail time. In North Dakota, where you are from, driving under suspension is a class B misdemeanor for the first, second, or third offense within a five-year period. However, if the person's driving privileges were suspended or revoked for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, a jail sentence of at least four consecutive days must be imposed. The jail sentence cannot be suspended or deferred. In addition, the court may impose a fine, and in its discretion, order the license plates of the offender impounded for the duration of the suspension period. North Dakota law does not allow someone charged with driving under suspension to challenge the underlying suspension order for the first time in the new case. One of the few available affirmative defenses to the charge is driving under duress, but that requires the existence of conditions along the lines of "life-threatening forces of nature." It doesn't sound like this applies to your boyfriend's case. The consequences of driving under suspension in every state can be quite severe. I highly recommend you retain a criminal defense lawyer experienced in traffic matters in the county where the violation occurred to resolve this case. An attorney may be able to negotiate a plea to a lesser charge that does not involve mandatory jail time and won't result in the revocation of probation for the original DUI. A lawyer who regularly practices in that jurisdiction will be most familiar with the prosecutor's and judge's plea and sentencing policies. If the matter cannot be resolved to your boyfriend's satisfaction before trial, his attorney can represent him at trial, holding the state to its burden of proof of establishing each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Even in the event of a conviction, an attorney can be of great assistance with presenting mitigating information at sentencing.... Read Answer

A "peeping tom" is usually a voyeur, one who gets pleasure, particularly sexual pleasure, from secretly watching others. The term comes from Peeping Tom of Coventry, England, who was the only person to see Lady Godiva naked as she rode her legendary horse through town, in an attempt to get her husband to lower taxes. The townspeople had been asked to close their shutters, but Tom did not, and caught a glimpse of her. "Peeping Tom" laws are often contained within loitering, disturbing the peace or criminal surveillance laws. A person commits the crime of criminal surveillance if he or she intentionally engages in surveillance while trespassing in a private place. Surveillance is generally defined as the secret observation of the activities of another person for the purpose of spying on them and invading their privacy. It also applies to a person who peeps through windows or doors. These laws can be subject to challenges on the grounds that they are unconstitutionally vague. In may places, they are municipal ordinance violations, rather than felonies or even misdemeanors. If you have been charged with this crime, you should consult with an experienced defense attorney in your jurisdiction who can explain the particulars of your state or city law, and evaluate any defenses you might have.... Read Answer