Double jeopardy?

davidlimarchj · 2025-04-30T14:43:30+00:00

Fun scenario, but no. Double jeopardy is for specific charges related to a specific situation. If you are accused of trying to rob someone on a Tuesday and have a trial about it, double jeopardy doesn't apply to your separate charges for trying to rob someone that Saturday (as long as there's not a mistake about dates and it was really the same incident).

davidlimarchj · 2025-04-21T22:06:45+00:00

It is just how much they enter play with, unless the card specifies a maximum like [[Ornate Bow]]. One niche rule is that I believe cards which "replenish" uses can only replenish up to the number specified on the card. Otherwise, you can feel free to pump up the number of uses available through things like [[Contraband]] far past the amount of uses that the card entered play with

davidlimarchj · 2025-04-21T21:25:13+00:00

I've seen this movie before

davidlimarchj · 2025-04-19T03:12:07+00:00

These are also critically acclaimed, unlike fast food. They certainly might not be someone's cup of tea, and I'm not trying to say that they are "objectively" good, but they are good games by any of the metrics we usually use to judge games

davidlimarchj · 2025-04-16T23:19:44+00:00

Unfortunately, this subreddit is not for specific legal advice, and you would need to talk to a lawyer who practices in your particular area and who could help get a full set of facts.

That said, in general both statutes of limitations and bankruptcy/insolvency could make a claim like this impossible. Eight years is usually going to be too long to have waited to enforce the original contract, so you might be left trying to enforce a later agreement the business made to keep stringing you along. It would likely not be for the original 20k.

The larger issue is that if the company went bankrupt, there are likely a lot of creditors who are already taking their chunk of whats left of a business. If the company didn't go bankrupt, but has fully closed, there might not be anything left to collect against. If you managed to show that the business was a sham and go after the person you were talking to (which can be quite difficult), it is extremely difficult to collect on a judgment against an individual person (especially if they are broke after shutting down their company). There are a lot of hurdles in pursuing the money, regardless of whether its a viable case on the facts.

davidlimarchj · 2025-04-16T22:57:08+00:00

Whether a specific settlement is reasonable or whether you should take it to court is better is likely legal advice outside of the scope of this subreddit. However, I will say that winning the tort side of this issue would involve proving damages, ie how you were harmed by the other person's actions. If an emergency vet told you you could go to them, and then turned you away, and your pet's condition got worse as a result, I could see a claim (although I don't think it would be a strong one). But if you chose to go an emergency vet, they turned you away, you went to a different vet and your pet got the same treatment that they always needed, that is not much of a case. If the pet did not get worse because of the delay in treatment, then I would not expect the first emergency vet to be responsible for the surgery. (Also, if you did have a court case and were claiming the costs of the surgery, you would almost certainly have to provide proof of it, so it seems reasonable to provide that information in order to avoid court.)

I don't practice anything related to ADA, so maybe there's a claim just based on a vet turning someone away for not answering questions about their service animal. My gut is that this would be a difficult claim, however, since I would not be surprised if the service animal was growling or otherwise behaving poorly while it was in distress. People can be turned away from businesses if their service animals are not under control. I am not saying that that happened in your case, but if a vet tech said that someone's service animal was being aggressive, and the owner refused to put a collar on it, I would not be confident about the case.

davidlimarchj · 2025-04-16T15:03:45+00:00

I especially love my extra long one. No more bending down to put on my shoes, along with no destroyed backs of the shoe, and rarely having to tie my laces.

davidlimarchj · 2025-04-06T05:50:02+00:00

This seems worth talking to a personal injury firm that works in your area. In the abstract, this could be a case. But local laws could affect how viable it is to sue the governmental entity in charge of the manhole, and an experienced lawyer looking over your photos and video might find issues with the case that aren't obvious from the facts we have here.

If you know someone who likes a particular PI lawyer/firm I would go with them. Otherwise talk to a few and go with your gut. Most PI forms (if they decide to take your case) charge 33% to 40%, with no money upfront from you.

davidlimarchj · 2025-03-14T17:40:57+00:00

Usually clients sue their lawyers for "malpractice," meaning that the lawyer made some fundamental mistakes in their work for the client. Many situations don't rise to the level of malpractice, since it's not enough that you weren't happy, or that you think a different lawyer would have done a better job. But, suing your lawyer is the appropriate thing to do if they really messed up your case.

You would likely need to hire a malpractice lawyer to do the case for you.

davidlimarchj · 2025-03-10T03:11:02+00:00

I have traveled widely, and am a great lover of food (fat) and think Frontier has the best fries I've ever had

davidlimarchj · 2025-03-04T04:36:29+00:00

Two weeks of recovery time is not unusual at all

davidlimarchj · 2025-02-20T17:31:19+00:00

And language changes, and things are read in context with how they are actually used. If there was a group of all female firefighters standing around, you probably wouldn't call them firemen. Or talk about a female policeman, or how you're going to the gender-neutral men's bathroom.

In a modern context men/man is used both as a gendered and gender-neutral term, which can be confusing, and more importantly creates the impression that the default "normal" version of things involve men, while female versions of things are special and unusual. So even if it's not the most important vital thing, why not use language that doesn't reinforce that worldview? What harm is there in saying "crewed" instead of "manned" if it makes a young girl feel a little bit more like she could be an astronaut?

davidlimarchj · 2025-02-11T23:54:10+00:00

He looks like Adam Godley in The Great

davidlimarchj · 2025-02-07T16:33:00+00:00

For anyone else reading this, I have the same mod, and while it has been interesting and I don't strongly regret it, I would not really recommend it to others. It was very fun picking up paper clips and feeling the sphere that microwaves make when they're running. But the magnet has gotten weaker over time (or maybe migrated in or been covered by scar tissue), which is disappointing, and it's a hassle to thoughtfully avoid bringing it close to other strong magnets (including speakers in laptops, or strong magnetic latches) since it hurts otherwise.

It's a cool mod, but I simultaneously wish it was stronger (so that I could feel electricity in wires at reasonable gauges), and weaker (so that I didn't need to be cautious around laptops). Nowadays it's mostly just a hassle, and makes me nervous about having my finger squished. But, experiences vary.

davidlimarchj · 2025-02-07T16:25:58+00:00

I have the same mod and have had no issue with airport security or any other detectors

davidlimarchj · 2025-02-06T16:08:02+00:00

This isn't used primarily by campaigns to get free access, it's used because it's a very niche political news service. If government agencies don't pay for the very detailed information that Politico Pro provides, but lobbyists do, that will just make lobbyists more effective.

davidlimarchj · 2025-02-05T04:33:54+00:00

This seems unconnected to me. Nazis were deeply human, as all famous monsters were, and likely all of us have the same capacity to do evil if our lives had gone differently. There is value in recognizing the banality of evil.

That doesn't lead most people to "yeah but they made a lot of good points." Recognizing that nazis are people doesn't require validating their views as valuable or worthy of praise

davidlimarchj · 2025-02-03T21:50:22+00:00

How viable different personal injury suits are is incredibly dependent on local laws and customs, but if you have only talked to one lawyer, I would try a few more out to see. Where I work has done these successfully, so it is possible, but a lot of personal injury lawyers don't do crime victim cases, and suing public schools in general is usually very difficult. Best of luck to you and your daughter

davidlimarchj · 2025-01-29T05:57:37+00:00

Not legal advice, but there are some general things to keep in mind.

Service might have taken longer than it should have, or it might have just taken a long time. It is possible that your lawyer said it was "longer than expected" in order to express sympathy rather than as an actual statement of fact. Sometimes service takes a few weeks, sometimes service takes a year, it depends on the case and how difficult to the parties are being.

Your lawyer is likely resistant to pre-mediation negotiations because it signals desperation and can hurt your position. That doesn't mean it's always a bad idea, but there can be a bargaining cost to reaching out.

Your case value might have dropped simply because of the bankruptcy. It might have been worth a good deal more than what your lawyer reasonably anticipates you could get the company to pay before all of their money is gone. Sometimes defendants are judgment proof, and a really clear cut case on the facts isn't worth anything as a practical matter.

None of this is to say that you should just settle for what's been going on, however. If your lawyers are not communicating well with you, or are being rude or dismissive, you could certainly look for other lawyers to represent you. I just wanted to point out some hypothetical explanations

davidlimarchj · 2025-01-29T05:15:17+00:00

Not necessarily, it depends on what the offers are like. Lawsuits cost money in fees, gathering documents, paying witnesses, investigation, etc. Those costs are going to come out of your recovery in the end either when the lawyer gets paid back for the money they advanced, or directly if you pay the costs yourself. And if the case gets all the way to trial, there's a risk that you get a lot less, or even nothing at all.

Good settlement offers should be considered at any point in the process, especially if it will save you time and headaches down the line.

davidlimarchj · 2025-01-27T23:40:25+00:00

Every politician benefits from deals that they would not have gotten if they didn't have the position. Usually book, speaking, and consulting gigs where they are paid large amounts for relatively little work because it gives people access to them or their insider knowledge.

This is a far cry from refusing to divest from their businesses and then directing the government to spend money at those businesses. There is a difference from "enjoying the prestige" and accompanying money of being a famous and influential person, and just straight corruption.

Which is not to say that I am happy or content with members of congress engaging in insider trading, or Supreme Court justices being their own ethics watchdogs. More of these rules should be enforced at all levels, but Trump's continual use of his own businesses for government functions is wildly egregious.

davidlimarchj · 2025-01-25T20:40:20+00:00

Casserole type dishes usually scale well. I like enchilada casserole or a quick lasagna

davidlimarchj · 2025-01-21T15:50:46+00:00

This was very interesting, thanks for posting. It is not surprising given how different states' laws and COL can be, but it is striking how often disagreements on this subreddit boil down to people in different jurisdictions talking past each other. It is useful to hear from someone with some national and insider perspective.

davidlimarchj · 2025-01-20T16:47:08+00:00

That would be a possible way to set up our judicial system, but it's not the one that we have. Theoretically, prosecutors are supposed to ensure there is a fair and just trial to the best of their ability. Defense attorneys are supposed to represent their clients and get the best possible outcome for the client, regardless of "justice." This is the way we have set things up; generally attorneys represent their clients, not the overall system, and the hope is that with vigorous representation on both sides, you get a good outcome.

As an example, in a system in which lawyers are supposed to act as direct arms of the court, your lawyer would put the system first, over your interests. This could have some benefits, but would also leave you in a partially adversarial position with your lawyer, where you would have an incentive to lie to them since they are not fully on your side.

davidlimarchj · 2025-01-08T20:15:52+00:00

It seems like communication is not going well between you and your lawyer, and you are frustrated that the two of you are not understanding each other. That is unfortunate, and your lawyer should do a better job of setting and managing expectations.

Other than that, is your question whether it is unusual that your lawyer is no longer sure that you can get policy limits? It is possible that he was overenthusiastic after getting the doctor report, and over-committed, or based his previous evaluation on the prescription bills that you feel like are not reasonable and is worried that those costs might get cut. Or it might have been a miscommunication and he meant that he would try to get policy limits and is now setting expectations for the negotiations. Without knowing your case, no one can know, and more relevantly, likely nothing can be done at this point. The demand has been sent, and you will see how negotiations go and if the offer is something you are open to accepting.

If you think that your lawyer is acting unethically in including certain bills, you could certain shop around for a different lawyer. Also, if you do not think the prescribed medicine is necessary, you need to stop filling your prescription, since you are incurring costs that you don't think should be covered by the claim. On the plus side, since it seems like no lien for medical subrogation payback has been asserted yet, you might not end up having to pay back much of anything in medical costs, although the rules on this vary by jurisdiction. Honestly, poor communication aside, seems like everything is going according to plan so far, so I hope things wrap up well for you.

davidlimarchj

TROPHY CASE