Law School

Missouri imposes a sales tax upon all sales of tangible personal property, as well as some "taxable services"; it also charges a use tax for the "privilege of storing, using or consuming within this state any article of tangible personal property." The state rate, including conservation and other taxes, is 4.225%, and counties, municipalities, and other political subdivisions charge their own taxes. Those additional local taxes combined with "community improvement district," "transportation development district," and "museum district" taxes can result in merchandise sales taxes in excess of 10%. The state sales tax rate on certain foods is 1.225%. Missouri provides several exemptions from sales tax, such as purchases by charitable organizations or some common carriers (as opposed to "contract carriers"). Missouri also excludes some purchases from taxation on the grounds that such sales are not sales at retail; these include sales to political subdivisions. The Supreme Court of Missouri in August, 2009, ruled that when a sale is excluded from taxation – as opposed to exempt from taxation – the seller must self-acquire sales tax on its purchase of the goods and remit the tax on such purchases it made. This decision was reversed by two similar – but not identical – statutes added during the 2010 general assembly's regular session. Although the purchaser is obligated to pay the tax, the seller is obligated to remit the tax, and when the seller fails to remit, the obligation to pay falls on them. As compensation for collecting and remitting taxes, and as an incentive to timely remit taxes, sellers may keep two percent of all taxes collected each period. There are two exceptions to the general rule that the seller must pay the sales tax when he or she fails to collect it. First, no sales tax is due upon the purchase of a motor vehicle that must be titled. Instead, the purchaser pays the tax directly to the Department of Revenue within one month of purchase. As long as the vehicle is taken out of state within that first month of purchase and titled elsewhere, no tax is due in Missouri. Second, if the purchaser presents an exemption certificate to the buyer at the time of sale, then the purchaser may be assessed taxes on the purchases if the certificate was issued in bad faith.

In conflict of laws, the term lex loci (Latin for "the law of the place") is a shorthand version of the choice of law rules that determine the lex causae (the laws chosen to decide a case). General principles. When a case comes before a court, if the main features of the case (particularly the parties and the causes of action) are local, the court will then apply the lex fori, the prevailing municipal law, to decide the case. However, if there are "foreign" elements to the case, the court may then be obliged, under conflict of laws, to consider whether it has jurisdiction to hear the case (see forum shopping). The court must then characterise the issues to allocate the factual basis of the case to its relevant legal classes. The court may then be required to apply the choice of law rules to decide the lex causae, the law to be applied to each cause of action. Blackacre, Whiteacre, Greenacre, Brownacre, and variations are the placeholder names used for fictitious estates in land. The names are used by professors of law in common law jurisdictions, particularly in the area of real property and occasionally in contracts, to discuss the rights of various parties to a piece of land. A typical law school or bar exam question on real property might say: Adam, owner of a fee simple in Blackacre, conveyed the property "to Bill for life, remainder to Charles, provided that if any person should consume alcohol on the property before the first born son of Charles turns twenty-one, then the property shall go to Dwight in fee simple." Assume that neither Bill, Charles, nor Dwight is an heir of Adam, and that Adam's only heir is his son, Edward. Discuss the ownership interests in Blackacre of Adam, Bill, Charles, Dwight and Edward. Where more than one estate is needed to demonstrate a point – perhaps relating to a dispute over boundaries, easements or riparian rights – a second estate will usually be called Whiteacre, a third, Greenacre, and a fourth, Brownacre. A security deposit is a sum of money held in trust either as an initial part-payment in a purchasing process (often used to prevent the seller's selling an item to someone else during an agreed period of time while the buyer verifies the suitability of the item, or arranges finance), also known as an earnest payment, or else, in the course of a rental agreement to ensure the property owner against default by the tenant and for the cost of repair in relation to any damage explicitly specified in the lease and that did in fact occur. In certain taxation regimes a deposit need not be declared as a part of the gross income of the receiving party (person or corporation) until either the depositing party or an arbitrator agrees the funds may be used for the intended purpose. A security deposit is a sum of money held in trust either as an initial part-payment in a purchasing process (often used to prevent the seller's selling an item to someone else during an agreed period of time while the buyer verifies the suitability of the item, or arranges finance), also known as an earnest payment, or else, in the course of a rental agreement to ensure the property owner against default by the tenant and for the cost of repair in relation to any damage explicitly specified in the lease and that did in fact occur. In certain taxation regimes a deposit need not be declared as a part of the gross income of the receiving party (person or corporation) until either the depositing party or an arbitrator agrees the funds may be used for the intended purpose.

In criminal law, property is obtained by false pretenses when the acquisition results from intentional misrepresentation of a past or existing fact. Elements. The elements of false pretenses are: a false representation, of a material past or existing fact,  which the person making the representation knows is false, made for the purpose of causing, and which does cause, the victim to pass title, and to his property. False pretenses is a statutory offense in most jurisdictions; subject matter covered by statute varies accordingly, and is not necessarily limited to tangible personal property - some statutes include intangible personal property and services. For example, the North Carolina false pretense statute applies to obtaining "any money, goods, property, services, choses in action, or any other thing of value ..." Under common law, false pretense is defined as a representation of a present or past fact, which the thief knows to be false, and which he intends will and does cause the victim to pass the title of his property. That is, false pretense is the acquisition of title from a victim by fraud or misrepresentation of a material past or present fact. a false representation - there must be a description or portrayal of something that is false. If a person makes a statement about something that he mistakenly believes to be untrue there is no false representation. For example, if a person represents that the ring is a diamond solitaire when he believes that is in fact made of cubic zirconium he is not guilty of false pretenses if it turns out that the ring was in fact a diamond. The representation must be false at the time the title passes. Thus if the representation was false when made but is true at the time title to the property passes there is no crime. For example, representing to a seller that you have funds available in your bank account to pay for the goods when in fact your account has a zero balance is not false pretenses if at the time the transaction takes place adequate funds are present in the account. The representation may be oral or written. The misrepresentation has to be affirmative. A failure to disclose a fact does not fit this misrepresentation in common law, unless there is a fiduciary duty between the thief and victim. Moreover, opinion and puffing are not considered misrepresentation as they color the facts but do not misrepresent them. of a material past or existing fact - the representation must relate to a material past or existing fact. A representation concerning a future state of facts is not sufficient. Nor is merely an expression of opinion. which the person making the representation knows is false - A mistaken representation about some past or existing state of facts is not sufficient for false pretense. made for the purpose of causing and which does cause - It is essential that the victim of the false pretenses must actually be deceived by the misrepresentation: the victim must transfer title to the property in reliance on the representation; and the victim being deceived must be a major (if not the only) reason for the victim's transferring title to the defendant. Simply making a false promise or statement is not sufficient. It is not a defense to a false pretenses charge that a reasonable person would not have been deceived by the false representation. No matter how gullible the victim, if he or she was in fact deceived the offense has been committed. On the other hand, the offense requires the victim to believe the representation to be true. If the person to whom the representation has been made has doubts or serious misgivings about the truth of the representation but nonetheless goes through with the transaction he has not been deceived - he has basically assumed the risk of a false representation.

Personal jurisdiction is a court's jurisdiction over the parties, as determined by the facts in evidence, which bind the parties to a lawsuit, as opposed to subject-matter jurisdiction, which is jurisdiction over the law involved in the suit. Without personal jurisdiction over a party, a court’s rulings or decrees cannot be enforced upon that party, except by comity; for example, to the extent that the sovereign which has jurisdiction over the party allows the court to enforce them upon that party. A court that has personal jurisdiction has both the authority to rule on the law and facts of a suit and the power to enforce its decision upon a party to the suit. In some cases, territorial jurisdiction may also constrain a court's reach, such as preventing hearing of a case concerning events occurring on foreign territory between two citizens of the home jurisdiction. A similar principle is that of standing or locus standi, which is the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. International principles. Since there is no world government which all countries recognize to arbitrate disputes over jurisdiction, sovereign powers can find themselves in conflict over which is the more appropriate venue to hear a case, or which country's laws should apply. These conflicts are sometimes resolved de facto by physical factors, such as which country has physical possession of a defendant or property, or sometimes by use of physical police or military force to seize people or property. A country with loose rule of law – for example an absolute monarchy with no independent judiciary – may arbitrarily choose to assert jurisdiction over a case without citing any particular justification. Such assertion can cause problems, such as encouraging other countries to take arbitrary actions over foreign citizens and property, or even provoking skirmishes or armed conflict. In practice, many countries operate by one or another principles, either in written law or in practice, which communicate when the country will and will not assert jurisdiction: treaty jurisdiction — An international treaty explicitly decides the issue. territorial principle — A country asserts jurisdiction over people, property, and events taking place on its own territory. nationality principle — A country asserts jurisdiction over the conduct of its citizens, anywhere in the world. passive personality principle — A country asserts jurisdiction over acts committed against its citizens, anywhere in the world. protective principle — A country asserts jurisdiction over issues that affect its interests, such as conspiracies to overthrow its government, or resources critical to its economy (such as access to an international waterway) universal jurisdiction — A country asserts jurisdiction over certain acts committed by anyone, anywhere in the world. Usually reserved for exceptionally serious crimes, such as war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Economic torts, which are also called business torts, are torts that provide the common law rules on liability which arise out of business transactions such as interference with economic or business relationships and are likely to involve pure economic loss. Nature of economic torts[edit] Economic torts are tortious interference actions designed to protect trade or business. The area includes the doctrine of restraint of trade and, particularly in the United Kingdom, has largely been submerged in the twentieth century by statutory interventions on collective labour law and modern competition law, and certain laws governing intellectual property, particularly unfair competition law. The "absence of any unifying principle drawing together the different heads of economic tort liability has often been remarked upon." The principal torts are: passing off, injurious falsehood and trade libel (see also Food libel laws), conspiracy, inducement of breach of contract, tortious interference (such as interference with economic relations or unlawful interference with trade), negligent misrepresentation, and, watching and besetting. These torts represent the common law's historical attempt to balance the need to protect claimants against those who inflict economic harm and the wider need to allow effective, even aggressive, competition (including competition between employers and their workers). Two cases demonstrate economic torts' affinity to competition and labour law. In Mogul Steamship Co Ltd the plaintiffs argued they had been driven from the Chinese tea market by a 'shipping conference', that had acted together to underprice them. But this cartel was ruled lawful and "nothing more than a war of competition waged in the interest of their own trade." Nowadays, this would be considered a criminal cartel. In English labour law the most notable case is Taff Vale Railway v Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants. The House of Lords thought that unions should be liable in tort for helping workers to go on strike for better pay and conditions. But it riled workers so much that it led to the creation of the British Labour Party and the Trade Disputes Act 1906. Further torts used against unions include conspiracy, interference with a commercial contract or intimidation.

By jurisdiction. Sales tax rates and what is taxed vary by jurisdiction. The following table compares taxes on selected classes of goods in the states. Significant other differences apply. Following the table is abbreviated coverage of selected sales tax rates by state. Summary Notes: These states tax food but give an income tax credit to compensate poor households: Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Wyoming. Uniform local taxes are included in the base rate in California & Utah (1.25%), and Virginia (1.0%).

Nemo dat quod non habet, literally meaning "no one can give what they do not have", is a legal rule, sometimes called the nemo dat rule, that states that the purchase of a possession from someone who has no ownership right to it also denies the purchaser any ownership title. It is equivalent to the civil (continental) Nemo plus iuris ad alium transferre potest quam ipse habet rule, which means "one cannot transfer to another more rights than they have". The rule usually stays valid even if the purchaser does not know that the seller has no right to claim ownership of the object of the transaction (a bona fide purchaser); however, in many cases, more than one innocent party is involved, making judgment difficult for courts and leading to numerous exceptions to the general rule that aim to give a degree of protection to bona fide purchasers and original owners. The possession of the good of title will be with the original owner. United States. In American law, a bona fide purchaser who unknowingly purchases and subsequently sells stolen goods will, at common law, be held liable in trover for the full market value of those goods as of the date of conversion. Since the true owner retains legal title, the seller is liable even in a chain of successive bona fide purchasers (for example, the true owner can successfully sue the fifth bona fide purchaser in trover). However, the problem of successive bona fide purchasers can be remedied: If the jurisdiction recognises an implied warranty that the seller has title to the property (such as under Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)), then the bona fide purchaser can sue the seller for breach of that implied warranty. Courts of equity traditionally also recognise various other exceptions, likely giving rise to the idea embodied in the modern UCC. This rule is exemplified in circumstances like the Holocaust reconciliation movement, where property, such as works of art, stolen or confiscated by the Nazis was returned to the families of the original owners. Anyone who purchased the art or thought they had ownership was denied any rights over the litigious property due to the nemo dat rule. As mentioned earlier, the nemo dat rule has numerous exceptions. Legal tender, for example, does not adhere to the rule in certain circumstances. For example, if a rogue buys goods from a bona fide merchant, then that merchant will not have to return the bills to the true owner because holding the rule to be otherwise would disrupt the economy and prevent the free flow of goods. The same may be true of other "negotiable" instruments like cheques. If Alice, a thief, steals a cheque from Bob and sells it to innocent Charlie, then Charlie is entitled to deal with the cheque, and Bob cannot claim it back from Charlie (though the name appearing on the cheque may affect the validity of such a transfer). Another matter is the transfer of other legal rights normally granted by ownership. In 2011, a US District judge ruled that a woman who had purchased a stolen laptop could sue a device tracking company for invasion of privacy stemming from recording software installed on the laptop to facilitate its recovery after being stolen. This ruling demonstrated that bona fide purchasers are entitled to some rights by virtue of possession alone, or that nemo dat is superseded by the bona fide purchaser's right to privacy.

Extortion is the practice of obtaining benefit through coercion. In most jurisdictions it is likely to constitute a criminal offense; the bulk of this article deals with such cases. Robbery is the simplest and most common form of extortion, although making unfounded threats in order to obtain an unfair business advantage is also a form of extortion. Extortion is sometimes called the "protection racket" because the racketeers often phrase their demands as payment for "protection" from (real or hypothetical) threats from unspecified other parties; though often, and almost always, such "protection" is simply abstinence of harm from the same party, and such is implied in the "protection" offer. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime. In some jurisdictions, actually obtaining the benefit is not required to commit the offense, and making a threat of violence which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence is sufficient to commit the offense. Exaction refers not only to extortion or the demanding and obtaining of something through force, but additionally, in its formal definition, means the infliction of something such as pain and suffering or making somebody endure something unpleasant. The term extortion is often used metaphorically to refer to usury or to price-gouging, though neither is legally considered extortion. It is also often used loosely to refer to everyday situations where one person feels indebted against their will, to another, in order to receive an essential service or avoid legal consequences. Neither extortion or blackmail requires a threat of a criminal act, such as violence, merely a threat used to elicit actions, money, or property from the object of the extortion. Such threats include the filing of reports (true or not) of criminal behavior to the police, revelation of damaging facts (such as pictures of the object of the extortion in a compromising position), etcetera. In law extortion can refer to political corruption, such as selling one's office or influence peddling, but in general vocabulary the word usually first brings to mind blackmail or protection rackets. The logical connection between the corruption sense of the word and the other senses is that to demand bribes in one's official capacity is blackmail or racketeering in essence (that is, "you need access to this resource, the government restricts access to it through my office, and I will charge you unfairly and unlawfully for such access"). Extortion is also known as shakedown, and occasionally exaction.

Amount in controversy (sometimes called jurisdictional amount) is a term used in civil procedure to denote the amount at stake in a lawsuit, in particular in connection with a requirement that persons seeking to bring a lawsuit in a particular court must be suing for a certain minimum amount (or below a certain maximum amount) before that court may hear the case. United States. In federal courts. Diversity jurisdiction. In United States federal courts, the term currently applies only to cases brought under diversity jurisdiction, meaning that the court is able to hear the case only because it is between citizens of different states. In such cases, the US Congress has decreed in 28 USC § 1332(a) that the court may hear such suits only where "the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000." This amount represents a significant increase from earlier years. Congress first established the amount in controversy requirement when it created diversity jurisdiction in the Judiciary Act of 1789, pursuant to its powers under Article 3 of the US Constitution, the amount being $500. It was raised to $2,000 in 1887, to $3,000 in 1911, to $10,000 in 1958, to $50,000 in 1988, and finally to the current $75,000 in 1996. The use of the word "exceeds" in Section 1332 implies that the amount in controversy must be more than $75,000; a case removed from state court to federal court must be remanded back to state court if the amount in controversy is exactly $75,000.00. Federal question jurisdiction. Congress did not create a consistent federal question jurisdiction, which allows federal courts to hear any case alleging a violation of the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States, until 1875, when Congress created the statute which is now found at 28 USC § 1331: "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." At that time, such cases had the same amount of controversy requirement as the diversity cases. Congress eliminated this requirement in actions against the United States in 1976 and in all federal question cases in 1980. Aggregation of claims. Where a single plaintiff has multiple unrelated claims against a single defendant, that plaintiff can aggregate those claims – that is, add the amounts together – to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement. In cases involving more than one defendant, a plaintiff may aggregate the amount claimed against multiple defendants “only if the defendants are jointly liable.” Middle Tennessee News Company Incorporated v Charnel of Cincinnati, Incorporated (2001). However, “if the defendants are severely liable, the plaintiff must satisfy the amount in controversy required against each individual defendant.” The 5–4 decision in Exxon Mobil Corporation v Allapattah Services Incorporated, (2005), held that a federal court has supplemental jurisdiction over claims of other plaintiffs who do not meet the jurisdictional amount for a diversity action, when at least one plaintiff in the action does satisfy the jurisdictional amount.

Nuisance is a common law tort. It means that which causes offense, annoyance, trouble or injury. A nuisance can be either public (also "common") or private. A public nuisance was defined by English scholar Sir James Fitzjames Stephen as, "an act not warranted by law, or an omission to discharge a legal duty, which act or omission obstructs or causes inconvenience or damage to the public in the exercise of rights common to all Her Majesty's subjects". Private nuisance is the interference with the rights of specific people. Nuisance is one of the oldest causes of action known to the common law, with cases framed in nuisance going back almost to the beginning of recorded case law. Nuisance signifies that the "right of quiet enjoyment" is being disrupted to such a degree that a tort is being committed. Definition Under the common law, persons in possession of real property (land owners, lease holders etc.) are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their lands. However this doesn't include visitors or those who aren't considered to have an interest in the land. If a neighbor interferes with that quiet enjoyment, either by creating smells, sounds, pollution or any other hazard that extends past the boundaries of the property, the affected party may make a claim in nuisance. Legally, the term nuisance is traditionally used in three ways: 1. to describe an activity or condition that is harmful or annoying to others (for example, indecent conduct, a rubbish heap or a smoking chimney). 2. to describe the harm caused by the before-mentioned activity or condition (for example, loud noises or objectionable odors). 3. to describe a legal liability that arises from the combination of the two. However, the "interference" was not the result of a neighbor stealing land or trespassing on the land. Instead, it arose from activities taking place on another person's land that affected the enjoyment of that land.