Common law – Prosecute Bush Cheney http://prosecutebushcheney.org/ Thu, 16 Jun 2022 07:24:22 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.9.3 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/cropped-icon-32x32.png Common law – Prosecute Bush Cheney http://prosecutebushcheney.org/ 32 32 Duty of Good Faith in Common Contract Law Prevailing in Infrastructure Construction Disputes https://prosecutebushcheney.org/duty-of-good-faith-in-common-contract-law-prevailing-in-infrastructure-construction-disputes/ Wed, 15 Jun 2022 12:03:18 +0000 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/duty-of-good-faith-in-common-contract-law-prevailing-in-infrastructure-construction-disputes/ In Bhasin, the SCC said the common law treatment of good faith performance in contracts was “fragmentary, uncertain and unclear”. Ruling in favor of Bhasin, the court recognized that “good faith contractual performance is a general organizing principle of common contract law”. The court added that acting honestly in the performance of contractual obligations was […]]]>

In Bhasin, the SCC said the common law treatment of good faith performance in contracts was “fragmentary, uncertain and unclear”. Ruling in favor of Bhasin, the court recognized that “good faith contractual performance is a general organizing principle of common contract law”. The court added that acting honestly in the performance of contractual obligations was a “further manifestation” of this organizing principle.

“We lawyers didn’t know what that meant,” Martin says. “What is an organizing principle? Either there is a clause in the contract which is written, or there is a clause in the contract which is implied.

She says the concept was particularly interesting for the infrastructure and construction industry, where contracts tend to be long-term, governing relationships that span years.

“So when this case came out, it really caused ripples in the infrastructure and construction industry. What does this mean for infrastructure projects?

Previously, lawyers could assume that if the contract included things like secrecy clauses or renewal rights, they could tell clients they had the right “to act in a discretionary and self-interested manner”, says David Little , partner at Bennett. Jones LLP in Vancouver whose practice involves construction and infrastructure.

]]>
Uniform Civil Code: The coming storm over a single common law in India https://prosecutebushcheney.org/uniform-civil-code-the-coming-storm-over-a-single-common-law-in-india/ Mon, 30 May 2022 11:58:01 +0000 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/uniform-civil-code-the-coming-storm-over-a-single-common-law-in-india/ NEW DELHI – When it comes to matters like marriage, divorce, inheritance and adoption, India has different laws for different communities depending on their religion, faith and beliefs. But since independence, there has been talk of a Uniform Civil Code or UCC, a single personal law for all citizens, regardless of religion, sex, sex and […]]]>

NEW DELHI – When it comes to matters like marriage, divorce, inheritance and adoption, India has different laws for different communities depending on their religion, faith and beliefs.

But since independence, there has been talk of a Uniform Civil Code or UCC, a single personal law for all citizens, regardless of religion, sex, sex and sexual orientation. Even the constitution states that the state should “endeavour” to provide such law to its citizens.

But a common law – resisted by both the country’s Hindu majority and Muslims, the main minority – has remained, in the words of the Supreme Court, a “dead letter”. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is resurrecting the idea. BJP-ruled states such as Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh spoke about the UCC.

Certainly, the UCC was one of the initial campaign promises of the BJP, with the construction of the temple on a disputed site in Ayodhya, and the abolition of the special status of Kashmir. Now that the temple is being built and Kashmir has been stripped of its autonomy, the spotlight has shifted to UCC.

Hindu right-wing rhetoric has pushed for a common personal law to counter what they call Muslims’ “regressive” personal laws – they cite the example of triple talaq, the Muslim practice of “instant divorce”, which Modi’s government criminalized in 2019. The BJP manifesto says there “cannot be gender equality until India adopts a uniform civil code.”

But, as political scientist Asim Ali notes, “the reality is more complex.”

In other words, crafting a UCC will open a Pandora’s box with unintended consequences even for the country’s Hindu majority, which the BJP claims to represent. “The UCC would disrupt the social life of both Hindus and Muslims,” ​​he said.

Personal laws are devilishly difficult to unify in an incredibly diverse and vast country like India.

For one thing, even though Hindus follow a set of personal laws, they also recognize the customs and practices of different communities in different states. Muslim personal law is also not entirely uniform – some Sunni Bohra Muslims, for example, are guided by principles of Hindu law regarding inheritance and succession.

And then there are different laws for different states when it comes to property and inheritance rights. Christian-majority northeastern states like Nagaland and Mizoram set their own personal laws that follow their customs, not their religion. Goa has a common civil law of 1867 that applies to all of its communities, but also has different rules for Catholics and other communities, including one that protects bigamy for Hindus.

Personal laws in India are a subject of common interest for both the federal government and the states. Thus, states have been crafting their own laws since the 1970s. Years before a landmark 2005 amendment to an existing federal Hindu personal law allowing daughters to have an equal share of ancestral property as sons, at least five states had already changed their laws to allow this.

Now consider how personal laws deal with different issues.

Take adoption. In the Hindu tradition, adoption was undertaken for both secular and religious purposes – to have a male heir who inherits the property and for a male descendant to perform the funeral rituals of the parents. On the other hand, adoption is not recognized by Islamic law. But India also has a secular “juvenile justice” law that allows citizens to adopt regardless of their religion.

Also, do experts wonder what are the neutral principles to adopt when developing a common law?

“Which principles do you apply – Hindu, Muslim or Christian?” asks Alok Prasanna Kumar, a member of the Vidhi Center for Legal Policy, an independent legal policy advisory group based in Bangalore.

He says the UCC should answer some basic questions: What are the criteria for marriage and divorce? What are the processes and consequences for adoption? What are the rights to the maintenance or the division of the patrimony in the event of divorce? Finally, what are the rules of inheritance of property?

Then there’s politics, which can easily lead to backfire, Ali says. How would a BJP government reconcile a uniform law that freely permits cross-religious and community marriages with anti-conversion laws it has enthusiastically supported to curb inter-faith marriages? Or does the party, as Mr Ali suspects, plan to bring in-laws into small states without “significantly disrupting the customary practices” of its people?

Unsurprisingly, even the Supreme Court seemed confused about the UCC. In various judgments over the past four decades, he has pushed the government to enact a common civil code for “the integrity of the nation”. In 2018, the Law Commission, a body responsible for advising the government on legal reform, said the code was neither “necessary nor desirable”.

Obviously, UCC is not a silver bullet. “Uniformity doesn’t even add value to a law let alone great value. What makes a good law is that it is fair, clear and constitutional,” Kumar says.

To combat gender inequalities in personal laws, there is no objection to trying to change them rather than requiring compliance with a common law, experts say. This would essentially mean adopting the best practices of all personal laws.

Ali thinks many BJP-led states might sue the UCC not because he is particularly popular there or garners more votes. “It’s more about building their political capital and ensuring their survival within the new structure of the BJP where they have to constantly re-gild their Hindu credentials,” he says.

Others wonder why the BJP has not been able to push the code even in the states when it has been in power for a long time. With two years until the general election, does the party think the time has come? “The UCC is making a lot of noise right now, and the debate isn’t even political yet. Show us a draft of the proposed law first,” Kumar says. —BBC

]]>
Court of Appeal Refuses to Decide Whether IDEL Constitutes Constructive Dismissal at Common Law – Wrongful/Wrongful Dismissal https://prosecutebushcheney.org/court-of-appeal-refuses-to-decide-whether-idel-constitutes-constructive-dismissal-at-common-law-wrongful-wrongful-dismissal/ Mon, 30 May 2022 02:48:45 +0000 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/court-of-appeal-refuses-to-decide-whether-idel-constitutes-constructive-dismissal-at-common-law-wrongful-wrongful-dismissal/ May 30, 2022 Devry Smith Frank LLP To print this article, all you need to do is be registered or log in to Mondaq.com. Following the introduction of Infectious Disease Emergency Leave (“IDEL”) in Regulation 228/20 (the “By-Law”) adopted on May 29, 2020, in accordance with the Employment Standards Act 2000 (“ESA”), the […]]]>

To print this article, all you need to do is be registered or log in to Mondaq.com.

Following the introduction of Infectious Disease Emergency Leave (“IDEL”) in Regulation 228/20 (the “By-Law”) adopted on May 29, 2020, in accordance with the Employment Standards Act 2000
(“ESA”), the common law of constructive dismissal is uncertain due to conflicting Ontario court decisions.

Background

The settlement states that non-union employees whose hours have been reduced or eliminated due to COVID-19 are deemed retroactively on IDEL. As stated in Article 50.1 of the
ESAa temporary reduction or elimination of an employee’s hours of work and/or wages due to COVID-19 does not constitute constructive dismissal during the “COVID-19 period”, which began (retroactively) on March 3, 2020 and which is currently set to expire on July 30, 2022.

The settlement has caused some confusion, as it prevents IDEL employees from bringing a claim for constructive dismissal under the ESA, contrary to the well-established principle that an employer does not have an inherent common law right to temporarily lay off an employee – even if it has complied with the provisions of the Layoff Act ESA (the employer should include a dismissal clause in the employment contract).

Normally, for the common law to be changed by statute, the statute would have to contain express language to that effect. As expressly stated in Article 8(1) of the ESA, “no civil recourse of an employee against his employer is affected by this law”. The regulations do not contain any wording that would alter this section of the ESA, leaving many wondering how the courts would interpret and apply the settlement. In previous blog posts, which can be found here and here, we too at DSF have considered this uncertainty.

Coutinho v. Ocular Health Center Ltd., 2021 ONSC 3076 (CanLII) (“Coutinho”)

The question of whether the Settlement precluded an employee from bringing a claim for constructive dismissal at common law was first brought before the Court of Coutinho. The court held that although the settlement prevented the employee from claiming damages under the
ESAthis did not prevent them from pursuing a constructive dismissal action at common law.

Thus, the court determined that the settlement did not affect an employee’s common law right to assert that a reduction in hours of work and/or wages constitutes constructive dismissal, which would give rise to damages. interest for wrongful dismissal.

For a more in-depth discussion of this decision, please see our previous blog post here.

Taylor v Hanley Hospitality Inc., 2021 ONSC 3135 (“taylor“)

The “certainty” provided by the court in
Coutinho however, did not last long following the Ontario Superior Court’s contradictory decision in taylor. Contrary to the decision of Coutinhothe Court determined that an employee on IDEL under the settlement was not entitled to claim a claim for constructive dismissal at common law.

Please see our previous blog post here for more details on this decision, and our blog post here to see our first analysis of the conflicting judgments.

Taylor v Hanley Hospitality Inc., 2022 ONCA 376

As expected, the Superior Court’s decision was appealed due to inconsistencies between the judgments in Coutinhoand taylor. The decision of the Court of Appeal was to clarify the law in this regard, however, the decision issued on May 12, 2022 ultimately did not do so.

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial judge’s decision on other unrelated grounds

related to the erroneous grant of a request under Rule 21 under the
Rules of civil procedure. Thus, no decision has been made as to whether section 50.1 of the ESA prevails over an employee’s common law right to claim constructive dismissal. The case and this question of law were sent back to the Superior Court for a new trial.

Current state of the law: employers beware

For now, Coutinho and Fogelman v IFG, 2021 ONSC 4042 are the governing authorities. In both decisions, the Superior Court found that section 50.1 and the Regulations do not oust an employee’s common law right to claim constructive dismissal.

While the law is by no means certain, employers should be aware that based on these rulings, many temporary layoffs due to COVID-19 could be considered illegal and eligible for wrongful dismissal damages.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide on the subject. Specialist advice should be sought regarding your particular situation.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Employment and HR Canada

]]>
“Common Law”: the legal battle over black hair and protective hairstyles https://prosecutebushcheney.org/common-law-the-legal-battle-over-black-hair-and-protective-hairstyles/ Thu, 26 May 2022 07:00:00 +0000 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/common-law-the-legal-battle-over-black-hair-and-protective-hairstyles/ Black women facing discrimination for wearing their hair naturally have failed in the courts, underscoring the need for other solutions, says a University of Virginia Law School graduate in the latest episode of ” Common Law”. The ninth episode of the UVA Law Podcast features Doriane Nguenang ’21, now a partner at Baker McKenzie, and […]]]>

Black women facing discrimination for wearing their hair naturally have failed in the courts, underscoring the need for other solutions, says a University of Virginia Law School graduate in the latest episode of ” Common Law”.

The ninth episode of the UVA Law Podcast features Doriane Nguenang ’21, now a partner at Baker McKenzie, and hosts Dean Risa Goluboff and Professor Cathy Hwang.

Nguenang wrote about employment disputes over hair in his student note for the Virginia Law Review, “Black women’s hair and natural hairstyles at work.” As a law student, Nguenang also served as a research assistant for Hwang’s Corporate Law Scholarship.

Nguenang, from Cameroon, said she was surprised by the discrimination some women face in such cases, as she is from a country where black hair and natural hairstyles are the norm.

She and the hosts talk about how some litigation happened; the possibility of an expanded definition of Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin; and the CROWN Act – a bill that would protect employees from discrimination based on race. They also talk about the benefits of protective hairstyles that keep ends hidden, like twists, braids, buns, and wigs.

This season, called “Co-Counsel”, features a rotating set of co-hosts: Hwang, Danielle Citron, John Harrison, and Greg Mitchell. Everyone joins Goluboff to discuss cutting-edge research on legal topics of their choosing.

“Common Law” is available at Apple podcast, embroiderer, Youtube, Spotify and other popular podcast sources. The show is produced by Emily Richardson-Lorente.

Previous seasons have focused on “The Future of Law“, “When Law Changed the World”, and “Law and Fairness”.

You can follow the show on the website CommonLawPodcast.com or Twitter at @CommonLawUVA.

]]>
Man charged with assault and insulting remarks says his common-law wife would drop the charge, but she never showed up in court https://prosecutebushcheney.org/man-charged-with-assault-and-insulting-remarks-says-his-common-law-wife-would-drop-the-charge-but-she-never-showed-up-in-court/ Thu, 26 May 2022 07:00:00 +0000 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/man-charged-with-assault-and-insulting-remarks-says-his-common-law-wife-would-drop-the-charge-but-she-never-showed-up-in-court/ Views : 635 Posted: Thursday, May 26, 2022. 8:21 p.m. CST. By BBN Staff: When Gregory Wellington Johnson showed up in court today charged with common assault and insulting his common-law wife, he was sure she would be in court to drop the charges, but she didn’t is not presented. The 37-year-old Belize […]]]>



Views :
635

Posted: Thursday, May 26, 2022. 8:21 p.m. CST.

By BBN Staff: When Gregory Wellington Johnson showed up in court today charged with common assault and insulting his common-law wife, he was sure she would be in court to drop the charges, but she didn’t is not presented.

The 37-year-old Belize City resident claimed his common-law wife went to the police station four times to drop the charge after he allegedly hit her on the head during a domestic dispute, but the police did not allow her to do so. .

He told the court she was outside waiting to seek no further action, but when her name was called she was not there. Johnson’s arraignment took place and he pleaded guilty to the charges.

Bail was granted to Wellington for the sum of $800 plus bond in the same amount.

He is due back in court on July 20.

comments

Advertise with Belize’s Most Visited News Site ~ We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages. Your content is delivered instantly to thousands of users in Belgium and abroad! contact us at [email protected] or call us at 501-601-0315.

© 2022, BreakingBelizeNews.com. This article is the copyrighted property of Breaking Belize News. Written permission must be obtained before reprinting in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT CONSTITUTES THEFT AND IS PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

]]>
Does NJ have common law? What are the rights of unmarried couples? https://prosecutebushcheney.org/does-nj-have-common-law-what-are-the-rights-of-unmarried-couples/ Sun, 22 May 2022 21:17:18 +0000 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/does-nj-have-common-law-what-are-the-rights-of-unmarried-couples/ Let’s not bury the lede: No, New Jersey does not recognize common-law marriages — and has not since December 1, 1939. This is the date the state codified marriage as both requiring a license and being performed by a licensed cleric or official. However, some protections are available for couples who cohabit but never marry, […]]]>

Let’s not bury the lede: No, New Jersey does not recognize common-law marriages — and has not since December 1, 1939.

This is the date the state codified marriage as both requiring a license and being performed by a licensed cleric or official.

However, some protections are available for couples who cohabit but never marry, mostly established when the state began providing such guarantees to same-sex couples. from 2004.

The Domestic Partnership Act of that year was essentially superseded with respect to same-sex couples by the Civil Union Act, which came into effect in early 2007. The previous law remains an option for unrelated heterosexual couples in which both partners are 62 or older.

According to a reprint of the law from the State Division of Taxation, a domestic partnership in New Jersey is defined as when the eligible partners, who may not be related by blood “to and including the fourth degree of consanguinity “, share a community residence and joint responsibility for the “common welfare” through financial arrangements or ownership of property.

Although neither partner can be engaged in another state-sanctioned marriage or domestic partnership, until both have reached the age of 62, there is no stipulation for how long they must be lived together before filing an affidavit. It’s not like common law marriages in other states that are only recognized after a set period of cohabitation.

Oddly, according to the Office of Vital Statistics, parties in a New Jersey-sanctioned domestic partnership may reside outside the Garden State, provided that at least one of them provides proof of membership in a “state-administered pension system “.

Of course, as with traditional marriage, money is always a concern.

The Federal Social Security Administration advised in 2018 that a New Jersey domestic partnership may be considered a “spousal relationship for purposes of entitlement to widow’s insurance benefits”.

A 2019 NJ.com article said Social Security survivor benefits may also be available to all children of domestic partners until they graduate from high school.

Ten states currently recognize common law marriage, according to AARP: Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas and Utah, as well as the District of Columbia.

Pennsylvania banned the practice in 2005.

Patrick Lavery is a reporter and anchor for New Jersey 101.5. You can reach him at patrick.lavery@townsquaremedia.com

Click here to contact an editor about a comment or correction for this story.

Discover the must-see roads in each state

Voting for the New Jersey Hall of Fame Class of 2022

These are the nominees for the New Jersey Hall of Fame Class of 2022. They come from all walks of life, spanning generations dating back to colonial times. The nominees span the categories of arts and humanities, business, performing arts and entertainment, public service and sports.

Incredibly expensive divorces

]]>
Federal law prevents state common law claims against former airliner owner involved in multi-fatal crash in Cuba | Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP https://prosecutebushcheney.org/federal-law-prevents-state-common-law-claims-against-former-airliner-owner-involved-in-multi-fatal-crash-in-cuba-schnader-harrison-segal-lewis-llp/ Wed, 18 May 2022 18:22:30 +0000 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/federal-law-prevents-state-common-law-claims-against-former-airliner-owner-involved-in-multi-fatal-crash-in-cuba-schnader-harrison-segal-lewis-llp/ On May 18, 2018, a 39-year-old Boeing 737 leased by a Mexican company and operated by Cuba’s flagship carrier, Cubana, crashed shortly after takeoff near Havana; 112 people were killed in this tragic accident. In addition to suing the airline and aircraft manufacturer, among others, the plaintiffs sued a former owner of the plane, Wells […]]]>

On May 18, 2018, a 39-year-old Boeing 737 leased by a Mexican company and operated by Cuba’s flagship carrier, Cubana, crashed shortly after takeoff near Havana; 112 people were killed in this tragic accident.

In addition to suing the airline and aircraft manufacturer, among others, the plaintiffs sued a former owner of the plane, Wells Fargo Trust Company. Wells Fargo had bought the plane in 2005 and sold it to a Mexican company in 2008, about ten years before the crash. Wells Fargo said it did not own or control the plane during the three years it was owned, between 2005 and 2008.

The plaintiffs alleged that when Wells Fargo sold the plane in 2008 it was “defective and unreasonably dangerous” and “had defects in the flight control surfaces, rudder and rudder control system, throttle rods rudder power control unit, the aircraft’s stabilizer and more generally, the engine. Plaintiffs also alleged that Wells Fargo “bought and sold the aircraft without including any warning about the effect of aging on the aircraft”, and was liable for “failure to correct, remedy and repair unsafe and defective conditions”, for selling the aircraft “in an unsafe condition” and for “negligent failure to inspect and discover » alleged defects and unsafe conditions.

Wells Fargo filed a motion to dismiss Federal Rule 12(b)(6) on various grounds, including its contention that plaintiffs’ state common law tort claims were preempted under a provision of the Federal Aviation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 44112which in a section titled “Limitation of Liabilityprotects “owners and lessors from liability for bodily injury if they did not have actual possession or operational control of the aircraft.” Specifically, the law provides the following:

(b) Liability.—A lessor, owner, or secured party is liable for personal injury, death, or loss or damage to property only while a civil aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller is in the possession effective or under the operational control of the lessor, the owner. , or the Warranted Party, and personal injury, death, or property loss or damage occurs due to:

  1. the aircraft, engine or propeller; or
  2. flying or dropping an object from the aircraft, engine or propeller.

In granting the motion to dismiss and finding that plaintiffs’ state common law claims were anticipated and barred under federal law, the court rejected plaintiffs’ assertion that the law does not apply. did not apply because plaintiffs purported to sue Wells Fargo “as a seller of the aircraft – not as owner or lessor. The court held that “as a matter of straight, the affixing of the ‘seller’ label to Wells Fargo makes no substantial difference”, considering that if “the owners, lessors or non-custodial and non-operating security holders of an aircraft could be held responsible after having sold it , this would reduce the supply of financiers for aircraft.

Finally, granting the motion to dismiss without prejudice, the court said plaintiffs “may propose an amendment to the complaint if they believe that preemption can be avoided with new allegations.”

JAGP v. Aerolineas Damojh, SA/ de CV, 2022 US Dist. LEXIS 24858 (ND Ill. February 11, 2022).

[View source.]

]]>
Federal law prevents state common law claims against former airliner owner involved in multi-fatal crash in Cuba – Aviation https://prosecutebushcheney.org/federal-law-prevents-state-common-law-claims-against-former-airliner-owner-involved-in-multi-fatal-crash-in-cuba-aviation/ Mon, 16 May 2022 18:24:36 +0000 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/federal-law-prevents-state-common-law-claims-against-former-airliner-owner-involved-in-multi-fatal-crash-in-cuba-aviation/ May 16, 2022 Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP To print this article, all you need to do is be registered or log in to Mondaq.com. On May 18, 2018, a 39-year-old Boeing 737 leased by a Mexican company and operated by Cuba’s flagship carrier, Cubana, crashed shortly after takeoff near Havana; 112 […]]]>

To print this article, all you need to do is be registered or log in to Mondaq.com.

On May 18, 2018, a 39-year-old Boeing 737 leased by a Mexican company and operated by Cuba’s flagship carrier, Cubana, crashed shortly after takeoff near Havana; 112 people were killed in this tragic accident.

In addition to suing the airline and aircraft manufacturer, among others, the plaintiffs sued a former owner of the plane, Wells Fargo Trust Company. Wells Fargo had bought the plane in 2005 and sold it to a Mexican company in 2008, about ten years before the crash. Wells Fargo said it did not own or control the plane during the three years it was owned, between 2005 and 2008.

The plaintiffs alleged that when Wells Fargo sold the plane in 2008 it was “defective and unreasonably dangerous” and “had defects in the flight control surfaces, rudder and rudder control system, throttle rods rudder power control unit, the aircraft stabilizer and more generally, the engine.” The plaintiffs also alleged that Wells Fargo “bought and sold the aircraft without including any warning regarding the effect of aging on the aircraft”, and was liable due to the “failure to correct, remedy and repair the conditions unsafe and defective”, for selling the aircraft “in an unsafe condition” and for “negligent failure to inspect and discover” the alleged defects and unsafe conditions.

Wells Fargo filed a motion to dismiss Federal Rule 12(b)(6) on various grounds, including its contention that plaintiffs’ state common law tort claims were preempted under a provision of the Federal Aviation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 44112which in a section titled “Limitation of Liability“protects” owners and lessors from liability for bodily injury if they did not have actual possession or operational control of the aircraft. Specifically, the law provides the following:

(b) Liability.—A lessor, owner, or secured party is liable for personal injury, death, or loss or damage to property only while a civil aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller is in the possession effective or under the operational control of the lessor, the owner. , or the Warranted Party, and bodily injury, death, or property loss or damage occurs due to:

  • the aircraft, engine or propeller; or

  • flying or dropping an object from the aircraft, engine or propeller.

In granting the motion to dismiss and finding that the plaintiffs’ state common law claims were preempted and barred under federal law, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ contention that the law did not apply. because plaintiffs purported to sue Wells Fargo “as a seller of the aircraft – and not as owner or lessor.” The court held that “for straight, the affixing of the ‘seller’ label to Wells Fargo makes no substantial difference”, considering that if “owners, lessors or non-custodial and non-operating security holders of an aircraft could be held liable after the to have sold would reduce the supply of financiers for the planes.

Finally, granting the motion to dismiss without prejudice, the court said plaintiffs “may propose an amendment to the complaint if they believe that preemption can be avoided with new allegations.”

JAGP v. Aerolineas Damojh, SA/ de CV, 2022 US Dist. LEXIS 24858 (ND Ill. February 11, 2022).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide on the subject. Specialist advice should be sought regarding your particular situation.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Transportation from the United States

Foley Automotive Report

Foley & Lardner

This report helps automotive suppliers inform their legal and operational decisions to help them address challenges and seize opportunities. Contact your Foley relationship partner, or John R. Trentacosta or Ann Marie Uetz, for follow-up.

Foley Automotive Report

Foley & Lardner

This report helps automotive suppliers inform their legal and operational decisions to help them address challenges and seize opportunities.

]]>
Common Law: The Psychology of Eyewitness Memory https://prosecutebushcheney.org/common-law-the-psychology-of-eyewitness-memory/ Thu, 12 May 2022 07:00:00 +0000 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/common-law-the-psychology-of-eyewitness-memory/ Psychologist Elizabeth F. Loftus, one of the nation’s leading memory experts, discusses her work and how it has transformed the legal system in the latest “Common Law,” a podcast from the Faculty of law from the University of Virginia. Loftus launched a revolution in the way courts and the public think about the reliability of […]]]>

Psychologist Elizabeth F. Loftus, one of the nation’s leading memory experts, discusses her work and how it has transformed the legal system in the latest “Common Law,” a podcast from the Faculty of law from the University of Virginia.

Loftus launched a revolution in the way courts and the public think about the reliability of eyewitness testimony, beginning with his seminal 1979 book “Eyewitness Testimony.” His early experiments, which unlike previous memory studies asked participants to recount realistic or real-life events, revealed how memories can be altered by things said to you or other post-event information. The research has opened the door to the possibility of experts testifying about the reliability of eyewitness memory and has spurred a wave of additional studies revealing just how malleable memories can be.

Loftus is currently Professor Emeritus at the University of California, Irvine, where she holds appointments in the Departments of Psychological and Criminology, Law and Society Sciences, and is a Professor of Law. She has testified in hundreds of court cases, including the Hillside Strangler case, the Abscam cases, the trial of the officers charged in the Rodney King beating, the Menendez brothers and the bombing case. of Oklahoma, and litigation involving Michael Jackson, Martha Stewart and Duke University lacrosse players.

Loftus and hosts Risa Goluboff and Gregory Mitchell also discuss false and repressed memories, best practices for police interrogations, and the George Franklin case which is now a Showtime documentary, “Buried.”

This season, titled “Co-Counsel”, features a rotating set of co-hosts: Mitchell, Danielle Citron, John C. Harrison, and Cathy Hwang. Everyone joins Goluboff to discuss cutting-edge research on legal topics of their choice.

“Common Law” is available at Apple podcast, embroiderer, Youtube, Spotify and other popular places where you can listen to podcasts. The show is produced by Emily Richardson-Lorente.

Previous seasons have focused on “The Future of Law”, “When Law Changed the World”, and “Law and Fairness”.

You can watch the show on the website CommonLawPodcast.com or Twitter at @CommonLawUVA.

]]>
What Samuel Alito is wrong about English common law https://prosecutebushcheney.org/what-samuel-alito-is-wrong-about-english-common-law/ Wed, 11 May 2022 13:35:37 +0000 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/what-samuel-alito-is-wrong-about-english-common-law/ And for the court’s Catholic judges, it makes even less sense to deny rights based on what pre-revolutionary English jurists once thought. For about a century and a half before American independence, the English legal system imposed a wide range of civil and religious restrictions on English Catholics who had refused to convert to the […]]]>

And for the court’s Catholic judges, it makes even less sense to deny rights based on what pre-revolutionary English jurists once thought. For about a century and a half before American independence, the English legal system imposed a wide range of civil and religious restrictions on English Catholics who had refused to convert to the Anglican faith. Catholics were repeatedly prohibited from voting, teaching, owning or carrying firearms, inheriting land owned by non-Catholics, and holding public office. The last statutory restrictions imposed on Catholics, including the ability to serve in the judiciary, were not repealed until the British government swept them away in 1829, not out of good heart but to ward off an impending uprising in Ireland.

Prior to this, anti-Catholic measures enjoyed strong support from the English legal establishment. Coke, in his Institutes, discussed the crime of praemunire, which generally meant upholding any foreign jurisdiction over England, but often referred specifically to those who upheld papal authority. Coke noted favorably that “From and after conviction the accused shall be out of the protection of the king, and his lands and buildings, goods and personal effects, forfeited to the king: and his body shall remain in prison at pleasure of the King”. About a century later, Blackstone concluded that it was no longer legally defensible to kill a man guilty of praemunire on sight, as Coke had once thought. But he added that the defendant still generally loses the protection of the English legal system, “being so far removed from the protection of the law, that he will not protect his civil rights, nor remedy what he might suffer as a than individual”.

Fortunately, Alito and the other four Catholic judges need not worry about a reversal of Catholic emancipation in the United States. One of the most important things that early Americans got rid of after independence was the overt religious bigotry that had consumed Europe for centuries. The Constitution explicitly prohibits religious testing for public office, and the First Amendment directly prohibits the creation of an established church. And even if they did not, it would be unthinkable to rely on centuries-old texts on English law to deprive American Catholics of their equal role in modern society. It should be equally unthinkable to use them to revoke any constitutional rights held by Americans in this century.

]]>