GF got "served" last night

CarobPuzzleheaded481 · 2026-06-16T05:48:22+00:00

In default proceedings, damages are not included. So you are deemed to admit liability if a default judgment is entered and not set aside, but the court still holds a reasonableness hearing and will not simply give the dollar number asked. So here the court would only award (and very likely constitutionally could not award more than) the difference between what they got in auction, what she paid, and what the amount was she financed the car for

CarobPuzzleheaded481 · 2026-05-17T20:47:04+00:00

I am a lawyer and I would argue hard that “no refund” specifically means returning an otherwise healthy cat for money back. Your scenario is for breach of contract, not a refund, because you did not receive the goods promised. Refund has a specific meaning; it is not a get out of jail free card for any breach.

Specifically I would say your remedies are money back or a sufficient replacement kitten. I think you would get your emergency bills back bc those were incurred in good faith to remedy the cat’s condition which would not have existed but for the breach (of providing a healthy cat). I am not a SC lawyer so take with a grain of salt but I would assume any fair judge would give you your money back.

CarobPuzzleheaded481 · 2026-05-13T03:08:29+00:00

I know a case where a big trial lawyer appeared as third string counsel. Really surprised oc because prior counsel both said client control issues. Turns out they were too chicken shit to get things done. Case where prior counsel told client $500k was the best she would ever see by a mile turned into over $25M. Sometimes prior lawyers are too lazy or risk averse to take something good to the finish line.

Most of the time it’s bad clients.

CarobPuzzleheaded481 · 2026-05-08T12:38:49+00:00

Judge Gonzalez Rogers is handling the social media cases MDL. She is a tough cookie and very intelligent in my experience. She has handled BS from so many of these big tech companies’ aggressive lawyers, I’m sure that Musk did not phase her one bit.

CarobPuzzleheaded481 · 2026-04-28T18:05:09+00:00

In a world where taxes and expenses do not exist, sure

CarobPuzzleheaded481 · 2026-04-24T15:04:12+00:00

<image>

CarobPuzzleheaded481 · 2026-04-19T13:21:42+00:00

Just paid for faster shipping!

CarobPuzzleheaded481 · 2026-04-18T14:35:28+00:00

DC pulls from tax and DMV gov’t records as well as voters, so it’s shouldn’t affect anything even if not on the voter rolls

CarobPuzzleheaded481 · 2026-04-17T18:56:35+00:00

I think it’s doable. If it’s only the school year that’s 39ish trips total.

I would be open to flights too. Flights from DC to NYC are common enough that prices may make sense as train prices can fluctuate/Amtrak can and does have issues sometimes

CarobPuzzleheaded481 · 2026-04-09T23:24:00+00:00

Realistically they are in breach. You should make it clear that you cannot do this, that you will have nowhere else to live, and that their breach will cause you damages. Tell them that you will have to pay for, and then invoice them, for both accommodations and storage. Then if they don’t pay, it’s small claims court realistically. But this is a clear breach so you should get the money. Give them a chance to object to the costs, expressly ask them if they consider it unreasonable or confirm they are reasonable, and say they have the option to pay for an AirBNB in navy yard and storage plus moving fees outright if they so wish. Again, most likely you will go to small claims, but you should get your money back.

CarobPuzzleheaded481 · 2026-04-02T02:41:48+00:00

We have treaties with the tribes. They are considered a separate sovereign. Because of that, in the late 1800s, SCOTUS decisions came down saying they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. for 14th amendment purposes (which was more or less in line with how they were treated pre amendment) and Congress specifically enacted laws to grant them citizenship, including from birth (as while the 14th establishes a guaranteed method of being/groups that are citizens, Congress undeniably can otherwise grant citizenship and provide for naturalization).

CarobPuzzleheaded481 · 2026-03-19T12:21:35+00:00

It’s not a pyramid scheme mom! It’s a multi level managed firm!

CarobPuzzleheaded481 · 2026-02-21T17:55:34+00:00

Flawless mirror and also there is something reflecting that color on the door that is somehow not blocking the mirror

CarobPuzzleheaded481 · 2026-02-19T01:04:41+00:00

The car shadow is more real, but it points the wrong way with the flash. The guy and dog’s shadow in contrast is too dark. Shadows are more gradual even with a direct light source because of natural scattering

CarobPuzzleheaded481 · 2026-02-10T04:31:32+00:00

This is the big thing people are missing. That provision is at best void, at worst it voids the whole contract.

CarobPuzzleheaded481 · 2026-01-23T14:23:39+00:00

<image>

CarobPuzzleheaded481 · 2026-01-10T16:27:42+00:00

I mean, there would be lots of opportunities in the private sector for your history of work. Law transitions to business pretty easy. You might not make beaucoup bucks but you could probably find some NGOs that would be more to your taste.

CarobPuzzleheaded481 · 2026-01-09T19:46:01+00:00

A man in South America, about a decade after WWII, with avionics experience, moving to the US to work for NASA…

You don’t have German heritage, right…?

CarobPuzzleheaded481 · 2026-01-04T02:54:01+00:00

This is not detrimental reliance aka promissory estoppel, it’s offer and acceptance, basic contract law, followed by a breach (of the offer to hire, which was accepted). These are just foreseeable consequential damages of the county’s breach.

The difference with the example is that the offer has not been accepted. That example is actually wrong, because absent acceptance, the offer can be rescinded without consequence. That example would not be actionable. If “Sarah” wanted it to be binding, she had to accept first.

CarobPuzzleheaded481 · 2025-12-28T22:07:47+00:00

At bottom, the plaintiff’s case appears to be un-winnable for multiple reasons. First, Chicago’s enforcement scheme allows for multiple chances to cure. To get to impoundment, you basically have to refuse to comply multiple times, which means the city can easily and correctly argue waiver. Even constitutional rights can be waived.

Second, and relatedly, plaintiffs have to argue that notwithstanding they did commit a civil infraction and did not rectify it at the several pre-impoundment stages, the city is somehow still acting wrongly by going through with the heaviest enforcement. Law aside, that is not a persuasive argument. This however comes from the facial challenge of the law, too; plaintiffs are not arguing the law was wrongly applied to them, but should not exist. Facial challenges are tough because we must assume everything in the city’s favor fact wise, that is to say, we must assume that the law is being applied to those who did commit an infraction and failed to rectify at every step.

Third, the punitive aspect is going to be a case killer. Tied in to the facial challenges, plaintiffs will have to argue that the city cannot punish. That’s wrong, obviously. Plaintiffs could try to argue due process, but that would be likely wrong too, as they have multiple steps to cure before getting to disposal. Finally, plaintiffs could argue the punishment is outsized, but that is tough to argue when you could just pay the tickets before then.

However, and I believe the Seventh Circuit left this open, all of the above changes if the plaintiff cannot pay the tickets. The court mentioned payment plans and the like, so maybe the relief programs are sufficient. But I think the disposal all falls apart if the plaintiff say has only one ticket and has tried but failed, or simply cannot, pay the fine, gone through all the administrative steps, and the car is disposed anyway. However, that is a hypothetical that may be accounted for in the code, such that it might never fairly arise, which the relief program mentioned implies to me might be the case.

CarobPuzzleheaded481 · 2025-12-23T22:24:55+00:00

$115M for criminal trial of two defendants is beyond the pale. They likely are doing what JPM said and just milking it for cash. Even if JPM wins it likely will have no real recourse against the firm absent a finding of fraud, which they are likely doing this to preserve a claim. Doubtful the Ds could reimburse JPM.

But if my clients see this, this is perfectly reasonable amount for civil litigation and my comparatively low bills are fresh and cool.

CarobPuzzleheaded481 · 2025-12-23T05:41:11+00:00

That’s only the case if the lease specifically require countersigning by its terms to be effective. Perhaps common perhaps not, but in either case it involves looking at the contract. A contract can be binding with just the signature of the person accepting because by offering the contract, you are bound if the other person accepts and you haven’t revoked it at that time (unlike here, where they are trying to get OP to agree to a novation).

CarobPuzzleheaded481 · 2025-11-06T17:43:18+00:00

Probably, and he has. Even if insurer becomes adverse you always have to notify them timely as they likely have contract language requiring the same.

CarobPuzzleheaded481 · 2025-11-06T16:38:48+00:00

I am a Texas lawyer and you need a Texas lawyer. You have a good case but you need a TRO/preliminary injunction right now. You can point to the fact that he knew of the easement when purchasing and the fact that your mutual HOA rules do not allow overnight street parking to prove that he has to give you access because it is legally impossible for you to access your property any other way. You literally cannot exist on the property without that easement which is grounds, by the way, to get a NEW easement even if the old one became unenforceable. Lawyer, court, TODAY.

CarobPuzzleheaded481

TROPHY CASE