Law School

In law and insurance, a proximate cause is an event sufficiently related to an injury that the courts deem the event to be the cause of that injury. There are two types of causation in the law: cause-in-fact, and proximate (or legal) cause. Cause-in-fact is determined by the "but for" test: But for the action, the result would not have happened. (For example, but for running the red light, the collision would not have occurred.) The action is a necessary condition, but may not be a sufficient condition, for the resulting injury. A few circumstances exist where the but for test is ineffective. Since but-for causation is very easy to show (but for stopping to tie your shoe, you would not have missed the train and would not have been mugged), a second test is used to determine if an action is close enough to a harm in a "chain of events" to be legally valid. This test is called proximate cause. Proximate cause is a key principle of Insurance and is concerned with how the loss or damage actually occurred. There are several competing theories of proximate cause (see Other factors). For an act to be deemed to cause a harm, both tests must be met; proximate cause is a legal limitation on cause-in-fact. The formal Latin term for "but for" (cause-in-fact) causation, is sine qua non causation. But-for test. A few circumstances exist where the "but for" test is complicated, or the test is ineffective. The primary examples are: Concurrent causes. Where two separate acts of negligence combine to cause an injury to a third party, each actor is liable. For example, a construction worker negligently leaves the cover off a manhole, and a careless driver negligently clips a pedestrian, forcing the pedestrian to fall into the open manhole. Both the construction worker and the careless driver are equally liable for the injury to the pedestrian. This example obeys the ‘but for test’. The injury could have been avoided by the elimination of either act of negligence, thus each is a but for cause of the injury. Sufficient combined causes. Where an injury results from two separate acts of negligence, either of which would have been sufficient to cause the injury, both actors are liable. For example, two campers in different parts of the woods negligently leave their campfires unattended. A forest fire results, but the same amount of property damage would have resulted from either fire. Both campers are equally liable for all damage. A famous case establishing this principle in the United States is Corey v Havener. In the United States, the rule of Summers v Tice holds that where two parties have acted negligently, but only one causes an injury to a third party, the burden shifts to the negligent parties to prove that they were not the cause of the injury. In that case, two hunters negligently fired their shotguns in the direction of their guide, and a pellet lodged in his eye. Because it was impossible to tell which hunter fired the shot that caused the injury, the court held both hunters liable.

Tax resistance in the United States has been practiced at least since colonial times, and has played important parts in American history. Tax resistance is the refusal to pay a tax, usually by means that bypass established legal norms, as a means of protest, nonviolent resistance, or conscientious objection. It was a core tactic of the American Revolution and has played a role in many struggles in America from colonial times to the present day. In addition, the philosophy of tax resistance, from the "no taxation without representation" axiom that served as a foundation of the Revolution to the assertion of individual conscience in Henry David Thoreau's Civil Disobedience, has been an important plank of American political philosophy. Theory. The theory that there should be "no taxation without representation," while it did not originate in America, is often associated with the American Revolution, in which that slogan did strong duty. It continues to be a rallying cry for tax rebellions today. American Henry David Thoreau's theory of civil disobedience has proven to be extremely influential, and its influence today is not limited to tax resistance stands and campaigns but to all manner of refusal to obey unjust laws. These are among the theories of tax resistance that have taken on a particularly American flavor and have animated and inspired American tax resisters and tax resistance campaigns. No taxation without representation. In English political philosophy of the late 18th century, the theory was prominent that in order for the sovereign to exact a tax on a population, that population must be represented in a legislature that had the sole power to levy the tax. That theory was made axiomatic in the form of the slogan "no taxation without representation" (and similar expressions). As the American colonies did not have representation in the British parliament, this axiom became a useful platform for colonial rebels to justify their rebellion against direct taxes imposed by the Crown. The "no taxation without representation" slogan was later brought to bear in the arguments for tax resistance by African-Americans  and women, as they did not have the right to vote or serve in the legislature. It is used today by the District of Columbia as part of a complaint that residents of the district have no voting Congressional representatives. The phrase has such potent currency in American thought that it is frequently used today in the context of tax debates that have little to do with legislative representation, at least in the way that the original coiners of the phrase would have understood: For example, complaints that Congressional representatives only represent certain special interests, or that the complainer doesn't feel that his or her point of view is represented in legislative debates or actions. Civil disobedience. Henry David Thoreau's 1849 essay On Resistance to Civil Government — now usually referred to as Civil Disobedience — is part of the canon of American political philosophy. It was prompted by Thoreau's refusal to pay a poll tax because of unwillingness to support a government that was enforcing the slavery of Americans and what he felt was an unjust war against Mexico. Thoreau argued that obedience to government is often misplaced, and that people should develop and trust their own consciences rather than use the law as a crutch. Thoreau's philosophy has inspired many tax resisters since, especially those who have acted individually (not as part of a tax strike or other large-scale movement) and from motives of conscientious objection.

Nomenclature. Throughout the world, there are a large number of different types and sub-divisions of liens. Not all of the following liens exist in all legal systems that recognise the concept of a lien. The following are descriptions that are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Types of lien include accountant's lien—the right of an accountant to retain a client's papers until the accountant's fees have been paid. agent's lien- the Lien granted to Agent by Borrowers pursuant to this Agreement and the other Security Documents. agister's lien—the lien of an agister over animals in the agister's care as security for fees. agricultural lien (United States)—a statutory lien that protects the seller of farming equipment by giving the seller a lien on crops grown with the equipment. architect's lien—the right of an architect to retain a client's papers until the architect's fees have been paid. attachment lien—a lien on property seized by pre-judgment attachment. attorney's lien—the right of an attorney to retain a client's papers until the attorney's fees have been paid (also referred to as a charging lien, solicitor's lien or a retaining lien in some jurisdictions). banker's lien—the right of a bank to satisfy a customer's matured debt by seizing the customer's money or property within the bank's possession. blanket lien—a lien that gives the lienor the entitlement to take possession of any or all of the lienee's real property to cover a delinquent loan. carrier's lien—a carrier's right to retain possession of cargo until the owner of the cargo pays shipping costs. choate lien (United States)—a lien in which the lienee, the property, and the monetary amount are established so that the lien is perfected and nothing else needs to be done to make the lien enforceable. common-law lien—a lien arising under the common law, rather than by statute, equity or agreement between the parties.

Types of stalkers. Psychologists often group individuals who stalk into two categories: psychotic and nonpsychotic. Some stalkers may have pre-existing psychotic disorders such as delusional disorder, schizoaffective disorder, or schizophrenia. However, most stalkers are nonpsychotic and may exhibit disorders or neuroses such as major depression, adjustment disorder, or substance dependence, as well as a variety of personality disorders (such as antisocial, borderline, or narcissistic). The nonpsychotic stalkers' pursuit of victims is primarily angry, vindictive, focused, often including projection of blame, obsession, dependency, minimization, denial, and jealousy. Conversely, only 10% of stalkers had an erotomanic delusional disorder. In "A Study of Stalkers" Mullen et al (the year 2000) identified five types of stalkers: Rejected stalkers follow their victims in order to reverse, correct, or avenge a rejection (for example divorce, separation, termination). Resentful stalkers make a vendetta because of a sense of grievance against the victims – motivated mainly by the desire to frighten and distress the victim. Intimacy seekers seek to establish an intimate, loving relationship with their victim. Such stalkers often believe that the victim is a long-sought-after soul mate, and they were 'meant' to be together. Incompetent suitors, despite poor social or courting skills, have a fixation, or in some cases, a sense of entitlement to an intimate relationship with those who have attracted their amorous interest. Their victims are most often already in a dating relationship with someone else. Predatory stalkers spy on the victim in order to prepare and plan an attack – often sexual – on the victim. In addition to Mullen and others, Joseph A Davis, Ph.D., an American researcher, crime analyst, and university psychology professor at San Diego State University investigated, as a member of the Stalking Case Assessment Team (SCAT), special unit within the San Diego District Attorney's Office, hundreds of cases involving what he called and typed "terrestrial" and "cyberstalking" between 1995 and 2002. This research culminated in one of the most comprehensive books written to date on the subject. Published by CRC Press, Inc. in August 2001, it is considered the "gold standard" as a reference to stalking crimes, victim protection, safety planning, security and threat assessment.

Characterization, in conflict of laws, is the second stage of the procedure to resolve a lawsuit that involves foreign law. The process is described in English law as Characterisation, or classification within the English judgments of the European Court of Justice. It is alternatively known as qualification in French law. It is used to determine the correct choice of law rules based on the circumstances of the case, primarily relating to matters of property. This is to reconcile differences between laws of different legal jurisdictions. The objective of characterization is to determine the nature of the action brought by the defendant in order to determine what relevant rules of applicable law apply. This may result in applying laws which differ from the lex fori. Additional factors make this determination not necessarily a simple process as the incidental question and renvoi can make determining the initial point of reference difficult. The leading authority in England and Wales is Macmillan Inc v Bishopsgate Investment Trust plc (number 3) . Overview. Characterization is one of the key elements in demarcating the choice of law and jurisdiction issues. The first stage is for the court to determine if it has jurisdiction, if appropriate, to avoid forum shopping. Once the forum court decides that it has jurisdiction to hear the case, it must characterize or classify the causes of action, this relates to choice of law matters. That is regarded as the most important and difficult problem in conflict of laws as trade and travel between states has become the norm. The effects of broken promises, defective goods, traffic accidents and marital squabbles are no longer confined to the sovereign territory of one particular state or nation. This is especially complicated because domestic laws usually operate to satisfy domestic interest. Various causes in actions and their respective remedies differ depending on the state. This derives from historical and political circumstances. The addition of the Rome 1 and Rome 2 Regulations to the European Union conflict of laws regime is designed to determine the choice of law which applies to situations where commercial or civil matters of broken promises, defective goods, traffic accidents, etcetera. with a party which is domiciled in a Member State. The role of characterization within an international private law adjudication might be highlighted if understood within the simplest example of the sale of a bicycle by A to B. The transaction has both contractual and proprietary elements. Different jurisdictions will characterize the matter in different ways depending on their own laws. As is crucial within the international private law context, it is the responsibility of the adjudicating court to determine the proper law and subsequently apply it.

Personal circumstances. The legal fiction of the reasonable person is an ideal, as nobody is perfect. Everyone has limitations, so the standard requires only that people act similarly to how "a reasonable person under the circumstances" would, as if their limitations were themselves circumstances. As such, courts require that the reasonable person be viewed as having the same limitations as the defendant. For example, a disabled defendant is held to a standard that, by necessity, represents how a reasonable person with that same disability would act. This is no excuse for poor judgment, or trying to act beyond one's abilities. Were it so, there would be as many standards as there were defendants; and courts would spend innumerable hours, and the parties much more money, on determining that particular defendant's reasonableness, character, and intelligence. By using the reasonable person standard, courts instead use an objective tool and avoid such subjective evaluations. The result is a standard that allows the law to behave in a uniform, foreseeable, and neutral manner when attempting to determine liability. Children. One broad allowance made to the reasonable person standard is for children. The standard here requires that a child act in a similar manner to how a "reasonable person of like age, intelligence, and experience under like circumstances" would act. In many common law systems, children under the age of 6 or 7 are typically exempt from any liability, whether civil or criminal, as they are deemed to be unable to understand the risk involved in their actions. This is called the defense of infancy: in Latin, doli incapax. In some jurisdictions, one of the exceptions to these allowances concern children engaged in what is primarily considered to be high-risk adult activity, such as operating a motor vehicle, and in some jurisdictions, children can also be "tried as an adult" for serious crimes, such as murder, which causes the court to disregard the defendant's age. Mentally ill. The reasonable person standard makes no allowance for the mentally ill. Such a refusal goes back to the standard set in Menlove, where Menlove's attorney argued for the subjective standard. In the 170 years since, the law has kept to the legal judgment of having only the single, objective standard. Such judicial adherence sends a message that the mentally ill would do better to refrain from taking risk-creating actions, unless they exercise a heightened degree of self-restraint and precaution, if they intend to avoid liability. Generally, the courts have reasoned that by not accepting mental illness as a bar to recovery, a potentially liable third party, such as a caregiver, will be more likely to protect the public. The courts have also stated the reason that members of the public are unable to identify a mentally ill person, as they can a child or someone with a physical disability.

Whistleblower program. In addition to the methods of proof the IRS has developed, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 created the IRS Whistleblower Office, which allows anonymous whistle blowers to receive 15 to 30 percent of any recovery by the IRS which comes to at least $2 million including all penalties, interests and any other monies collected from the government. The whistleblower program seeks information based on evidence and analysis which can provide a solid basis for further investigation rather than speculation and hearsay. The program is designed to provide incentive to ordinary citizens to inform on tax cheats. The program provides far greater incentives for whistleblowers than previous programs because under prior programs the government was not required to compensate whistleblowers. Under this program, a taxpayer may file a lawsuit in court if he or she does not receive a deserved award. Whistleblower Office. Established by the Tax relief and Health Care Act of 2006, the IRS Whistleblower Offices processes tips received from eligible individuals who spot tax problems in their workplace, in their day-to-day personal business, or anywhere else. After determining the degree of credibility, an appropriate IRS office is assigned the case for further investigation. The IRS office assigned varies by the type of issue that the whistleblower alerted it to. Individuals must meet qualifications to be eligible to receive the reward and must submit Form 211 with supporting documentation to the Internal Revenue Service Office in Ogden, Utah. To claim eligibility the individual must not be an employee of the Department of Treasury or have been an employee there when they obtained the information, must not have obtained the information through the individual’s official duties as an employee of the federal government, or who obtained the information based on a contract with the federal government. Whistleblower incidents happen in greater frequency in the private sector opposed to the government. The reward can be worth between 15 and 30 percent of the total proceeds that the IRS collects. To claim the reward, the IRS must move ahead based on the information provided and the amount identified, including taxes, penalties, and interests, must be worth more than $2 million. A gross income of $200,000 or more is required if the taxpayer in question is an individual. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 added subsection 7623(c) which expanded the definition of proceeds for whistleblower awards and was applied to open whistleblower claims. The Taxpayer First Act was signed by President Trump on July 1, 2019. This law made changes surrounding the notification process to whistleblowers and increased protection against retaliation available to whistleblowers. The main goal of the legislation was to improve taxpayer service and to ensure that enforcement of the laws is done in a fair, impartial manner, ultimately supporting the continued success of the nation.

A nonpossessory interest in land is a term of the law of property to describe any of a category of rights held by one person to use land that is in the possession of another. Such rights can generally be created in one of two ways: either by an express agreement between the party who owns the land and the party who seeks to own the interest; or by an order of a court. Under the common law, there are five variations of such rights. These are: easements, profits, restrictive covenants, equitable servitudes, and, licenses. A lien is a form of security interest granted over an item of property to secure the payment of a debt or performance of some other obligation. The owner of the property, who grants the lien, is referred to as the lienee and the person who has the benefit of the lien is referred to as the lienor or lien holder. The etymological root is Anglo-French lien, loyen "bond", "restraint", from Latin ligamen, from ligare "to bind". In the United States, the term lien generally refers to a wide range of encumbrances and would include other forms of mortgage or charge. In the US, a lien characteristically refers to nonpossessory security interests (see generally: Security interest § Types). In other common-law countries, the term lien refers to a very specific type of security interest, being a passive right to retain (but not sell) property until the debt or other obligation is discharged. In contrast to the usage of the term in the US, in other countries it refers to a purely possessory form of security interest; indeed, when possession of the property is lost, the lien is released. However, common-law countries also recognize a slightly anomalous form of security interest called an "equitable lien" which arises in certain rare instances. Despite their differences in terminology and application, there are a number of similarities between liens in the US and elsewhere in the common-law world.

Stalking is unwanted and/or repeated surveillance by an individual or group toward another person. Stalking behaviors are interrelated to harassment and intimidation and may include following the victim in person or monitoring them. The term stalking is used with some differing definitions in psychiatry and psychology, as well as in some legal jurisdictions as a term for a criminal offense. According to a 2002 report by the U.S. National Center for Victims of Crime, "virtually any unwanted contact between two people that directly or indirectly communicates a threat or places the victim in fear can be considered stalking", although in practice the legal standard is usually somewhat stricter. Definitions. In 1995 a research paper titled "Stalking Strangers and Lovers" was among the first to use the term "stalking" to describe the common occurrence of males after a breakup who aggressively pursue their female former partner. Prior to that paper instead of the term "stalking", people more commonly used the terms "female harassment", "obsessive following" or "psychological rape". The difficulties associated with defining this term exactly (or defining it at all) are well documented. Having been used since at least the 16th century to refer to a prowler or a poacher (Oxford English Dictionary), the term stalker was initially used by media in the 20th century to describe people who pester and harass others, initially with specific reference to the harassment of celebrities by strangers who were described as being "obsessed". This use of the word appears to have been coined by the tabloid press in the United States. With time, the meaning of stalking changed and incorporated individuals being harassed by their former partners. Pathé and Mullen describe stalking as "a constellation of behaviors in which an individual inflicts upon another repeated unwanted intrusions and communications". Stalking can be defined as the willful and repeated following, watching or harassing of another person. Unlike other crimes, which usually involve one act, stalking is a series of actions that occur over a period of time. Although stalking is illegal in most areas of the world, some of the actions that contribute to stalking may be legal, such as gathering information, calling someone on the phone, texting, sending gifts, emailing, or instant messaging. They become illegal when they breach the legal definition of harassment (for example, an action such as sending a text is not usually illegal, but is illegal when frequently repeated to an unwilling recipient). In fact, United Kingdom law states the incident only has to happen twice when the harasser should be aware their behavior is unacceptable (for example, two phone calls to a stranger, two gifts, following the victim then phoning them, etc.). Cultural norms and meaning affect the way stalking is defined. Scholars note that the majority of men and women admit engaging in various stalking-like behaviors following a breakup, but stop such behaviors over time, suggesting that "engagement in low levels of unwanted pursuit behaviors for a relatively short amount of time, particularly in the context of a relationship break-up, may be normative for heterosexual dating relationships occurring within U.S. culture."

Conflict of laws (also called private international law) is the set of rules or laws a jurisdiction applies to a case, transaction, or other occurrence that has connections to more than one jurisdiction. This body of law deals with three broad topics: jurisdiction, rules regarding when it is appropriate for a court to hear such a case; foreign judgments, dealing with the rules by which a court in one jurisdiction mandates compliance with a ruling of a court in another jurisdiction; and choice of law, which addresses the question of which substantive laws will be applied in such a case. These issues can arise in any private-law context, but they are especially prevalent in contract law and tort law. Scope and terminology. The term conflict of laws is primarily used in the United States and Canada, though it has also come into use in the United Kingdom. Elsewhere, the term private international law is commonly used. Some scholars from countries that use conflict of laws consider the term private international law confusing because this body of law does not consist of laws that apply internationally, but rather is solely composed of domestic laws; the calculus only includes international law when the nation has treaty obligations (and even then, only to the extent that domestic law renders the treaty obligations enforceable). The term private international law comes from the private law/public law dichotomy in civil law systems. In this form of legal system, the term private international law does not imply an agreed upon international legal corpus, but rather refers to those portions of domestic private law that apply to international issues. Importantly, while conflict of laws generally deals with disputes of an international nature, the applicable law itself is domestic law. This is because, unlike public international law (better known simply as international law), conflict of laws does not regulate the relation between countries but rather how individual countries regulate internally the affairs of individuals with connections to more than one jurisdiction. To be sure, as in other contexts, domestic law can be affected by international treaties to which a country is a party. Moreover, in federal republics where substantial lawmaking occurs at the subnational level—notably in the United States—issues within conflict of laws often arise in wholly domestic contexts, relating to the laws of different states (or provinces, etcetera.) rather than of foreign countries.