Civil Litigation Legal Questions

You don't have to return gifts, but the question will be whether these were unconditional gifts.  Your ex will no doubt claim otherwise.   For example, he may claim that he did not "give" you the equipment, but only allowed you to use the equipment while the two of you were together.  The fact that title to the trailer would support such a claim.  Ultimately a court would have to decide which of you is telling the truth and, absent some documentary evidence or testimony from some objective party with personal knowledge of the issue. it may come down to he said/she said.... Read Answer

You would need a ton of additional information before you could even start to answer that question what were the circumstances of the ship and fall?  Does it fall within Ok workers comp. law?  Is there insurance involved?  What kinds of verdicts do the local juries award in such circumstances?  Etc. etc. You should hire a local personal injury attorney. ... Read Answer

Because the gate has been there, openly and continuously, for so long, you  may have a right to have it remain based on adverse possession and/or easement by prescription.  However the exact requirements for these claims vary by state, and I'm not familiar with Minnesota law, so you should probably consult a local attorney.... Read Answer

Since the garnishment was issued by the court, there must be a judgment rendered against you and you would have at least been served with the paperwork before the judgment was rendered, at least on paper. Go to the court which issued the garnishment and look at the paperwork which rendered a judgment against you to see what kind of service of process that it shows. You can hire an attorney to challenge the service of process and therefore the judgment rendered against you.... Read Answer

You can sue the dealership for negligence, but I don't think it is a slam dunk.  I think different people could have different opinions s to whether the dealership acted reasonably, given that the building was locked and (presumably) this had proved to be adequate security in the past.  Also, I'm assuming that you had insurance that covered most if not all of your loss, thus most, if not all, of any damages you recovered from the dealership would go to repay the insurance company.  Indeed, the insurance company may decide to file a direct claim against the dealership, independent of you.  If you didn't have insurance, it's a different story, and the upside of suing probaly outweighs the downside.... Read Answer

You might have a valid civil claim for trespass and/or nuisance, particularly if the trees are that serious of an encroachment that they are interfering with the use and enjoyment of your property.  You may also reasonably trim the encroaching branches, but you must be very careful.  If you damage the tree, you can be held liable by the other property owner.  In 1994, "tree law" was changed in the case of Booska v. Patel - a neighbor does not have the absolute right to cut encroaching roots and branches so that they end at his or her property line.  Damages for injury to a tree can mount up because the statute in California allows for "treble" (triple) damages and more. Since you have already tried to work with the City, your best option may be a lawsuit for trespass/nuisance and seek an order from the Court abating the nuisance properly.  You will need a tree expert to write a report that your attorney will submit to the Court.  Take lots of pictures showing the tree encroaching, the droppings, etc.  You may also want to get an opinion from a realtor about diminution of value in your property. If this is a northern California situation, call me.  I have handled prior tree cases.... Read Answer

This is a perennial favorite of "news" networks like OANN.  The California DMV is not in the business of selling driver information to private companies.  This story pops up on the Internet every other year or so, and it's almost always from a suspicious "news" outlet.  It is like pulling teeth to get information out of the California DMV.  To my knowledge, they abide by the Federal Driver's Privacy Act.... Read Answer

I can help you with this. If you truly prove it is mistaken identity, you might want to do some "discovery" or file a motion to dismiss. The specific action you take depends on 1) their facts regarding the owner of the account; and 2) your specific defenses. Have you already sent them specific information regarding the mistaken identity? What have you sent? Edward Zohn, Attorney at Law, 908.791.0312... Read Answer

You can't properly be sued if you were not served, but you do not have to have been at home to have been properly served.  I don't know the California procedures, but most states allow service to be effected by sering another suitable person at your residence or work address, or even by simply leaving the summons and complain for you at one of those addresses and mailing a copy to you.... Read Answer

You've heard the adage "ignorance of the law is no excuse?"  It's true.  The fact that you didn't know what the law was is not a legal defense to your ticket, so I don't think you will win your appeal.  If you refuse to pay the fine, I assume that the Court will eventuallly order you jailed for contempt of court, where you probably will stay until you pay the fine, with interest.  Even after you get out, your incarceration may have to be explained to prospective employers, loan officers, etc.  It's not going to help your prospects.  Seems kind of silly to me, but it's your life.... Read Answer

Monetary damages are an element in almost every civil cause of action, including any claim that I can see arising from this situation.  From what you've written, you have none, therefore I don't think you have a valid claim.  In addition, as you would be suing the government there are sovereign immunity issues.  Sovereign immunity limits the claims you can assert against a government entity, the time period in which you can assert a claim, and mandates strict procedures which must be followed to assert a claim.... Read Answer

Assuming that the statement was untrue, and that the person making the statement knew it to be untrue when he/she made it, you have a slander claim against that person.  Such a statement would probably be considered defamation per se, meaning that you would not have to show any actual monetary damages to assert your claim.  You should be aware that defamation claims generally have short statutes of limitation (1 year in NY; not sure in PA), so if you want to assert your claim you have to do so in a relatively short time period.... Read Answer