Law School

Intentional torts.

Intentional torts involve situations in which the defendant desires or knows to a substantial certainty that his act will cause the plaintiff damage. They include battery, assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED"), trespass to land, trespass to chattels, conversion, invasion of privacy, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, fraud, inducing breach of contract, intentional interference with business relations, and defamation of character (libel/slander).

Elements.

The elements of most intentional torts follow the same pattern: intent, act, result, and causation.

Intent.

This element typically requires the defendant to desire or know to a substantial certainty that something will occur as a result of his act. Therefore, the term intent, for purposes of this section, always includes either desire or knowledge to a substantial certainty.

For an example in battery, Dave shoots a gun into a crowd of people because he is specifically trying to hit someone with a bullet. This element would be satisfied, as David had an actual desire to procure the harm required for this tort. Alternatively, Dave shoots a gun into a crowd of people for some reason and genuinely hopes no one gets hit but knows that it is virtually inevitable that someone will actually get hit. This element would still be satisfied, as David had knowledge to a substantial certainty that harm would result.

In contrast, if all that can be said about the defendant's state of mind is that he should have known better, he will not be liable for an intentional tort. This situation might occur if, as opposed to the examples above, Dave shoots a gun in a remote part of the desert without looking just for fun, not wanting to hit anyone, but the bullet does hit someone. Dave did not have a desire or knowledge to a substantial certainty that someone would get hit in this situation. He may, however, be liable for some other tort, namely negligence.

Transferred intent.

Transferred intent is the legal principle that intent can be transferred from one victim or tort to another. In tort law, there are generally five areas in which transferred intent is applicable: battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to land, and trespass to chattels. Generally, any intent to cause any one of these five torts which results in the completion of any of the five tortious acts will be considered an intentional act, even if the actual target of the tort is one other than the intended target of the original tort.

Public interest law refers to legal practices undertaken to help poor or marginalized people, or to effect change in social policies in the public interest, on 'not for profit' terms (pro bono publico).

It is not a body of law or a legal field. Rather, it denotes the clientele they represent. Instead of serving powerful economic interests, it stands for the advocacy of otherwise under-represented or vulnerable individuals, especially those living in poverty. It has grown to encompass a broader range of activities, typically the field of non-lawyers like civil rights, civil liberties, women's rights, consumer rights, environmental protection, and so on. Nevertheless, a common ethic for public-interest lawyers in a growing number of countries remains "fighting for the little guy".

By jurisdiction.

"Public interest law" is a term that became widely adopted in the United States during and after the social turmoil of the 1960s. It built on a tradition exemplified by Louis Brandeis, who before becoming a U.S. Supreme Court justice incorporated advocacy for the interests of the general public into his legal practice. In a celebrated 1905 speech, Brandeis decried the legal profession, complaining that "able lawyers have to a large extent allowed themselves to become adjuncts of great corporations and have neglected their obligation to use their powers for the protection of the people." In the late 1960s and 1970s, large numbers of American law school graduates began to seek "relevance" in their work—wishing to affect the social issues that were so visibly and hotly debated within American society at that time. They defined themselves as public interest lawyers in order to distinguish themselves from the "corporate adjuncts" referred to by Brandeis.

Summing up the movement's history in the United States, Stanford University Law Professor Deborah Rhode writes: "Public interest lawyers have saved lives, protected fundamental rights, established crucial principles, transformed institutions, and ensured essential benefits for those who need them most....In virtually every major American social reform movement of the last half century, public interest lawyers have played an important role."

Public interest law is institutionalized in the United States. Nongovernmental organizations that work to promote and protect human rights using the U.S. legal system, fight to protect the environment, or advocate on behalf of consumers, call themselves public interest law organizations. A large community of lawyers’ practices public interest law in the form of providing legal aid free of charge to those who cannot afford to pay for it. However, the grim reality remains that lawyers are underpaid and grossly overworked, offering perfunctory representation. Clinical legal education, which is well established in the United States, provides opportunities for law students to do practical legal work on basic legal matters as well as more complex public interest issues, such as women's rights, anti-discrimination law, constitutional rights, and environmental protection, among others. Some law schools have public interest law centers, which advise law students interested in pursuing public interest law careers. Pro bono programs at bar associations and law firms provide opportunities for commercial lawyers to donate time to public interest law activities.

Sports law in the United States overlaps substantially with labor law, contract law, competition or antitrust law, and tort law. Issues like defamation and privacy rights are also integral aspects of sports law. This area of law was established as a separate and important entity only a few decades ago, coinciding with the rise of player-agents and increased media scrutiny of sports law topics.

Amateur sports law.

Membership is voluntary. The NCAA operates along a series of bylaws that govern the areas of ethical conduct, amateur eligibility, financial aid, recruiting, gender equity, championship events, and academic standards. The NCAA has enforcement power and can introduce a series of punishments up to the death penalty, the company term for the full shut-down of a sporting activity at an offending college. Coaches are offered contracts and if any contractual agreement is violated NCAA has the right to hold any person under the contract liable.

Title IX is an increasingly important issue in college sports law. The act, passed in 1972, makes it illegal for a federally funded institution to discriminate on the basis of sex or gender. In sports law, the piece of legislation often refers to the effort to achieve equality for women's sports in colleges. The Office of Civil Rights (OCR) is charged with enforcing this legislation. This agency implemented a three-prong test for schools to adhere to:

Are the opportunities for female and male athletes proportionate to their enrollment?

Does the school have a history of expanding athletic opportunities for women?

Has the school demonstrated success in meeting the needs of its students?

In 1995 the Gender in Equity Disclosure Act was passed to require schools to make an annual, public report on male-female athletic participation rates, recruiting by gender, and financial support. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Brown University v Cohen, is an important aspect of litigation for women sports.

A critical piece of federal legislation, the Amateur Sports Act of 1978 guarantees certain due process rights including hearings and appeals for U.S. athletes under the governance of the USOC and its NGBs.

The alternative minimum tax (AMT) is a tax imposed by the United States federal government in addition to the regular income tax for certain individuals, estates, and trusts. As of tax year 2018, the AMT raises about $5.2 billion, or 0.4% of all federal income tax revenue, affecting 0.1% of taxpayers, mostly in the upper income ranges.

An alternative minimum taxable income (AMTI) is calculated, by taking the ordinary income and adding disallowed items and credits such as state and local tax deductions, interest on private-activity municipal bonds, the bargain element of incentive stock options, foreign tax credits, and home equity loan interest deductions. This broadens the base of taxable items. Many deductions, such as mortgage home loan interest and charitable deductions, are still allowed under AMT. The AMT is then imposed on this AMTI at a rate of 26% or 28%, with a much higher exemption than the regular income tax.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA) reduced the fraction of taxpayers who owed the AMT from 3% in 2017 to 0.1% in 2018, including from 27% to 0.4% of those earning $200,000 to $500,000, from 61.9% to 2% of those earning $500,000 and $1,000,000.

The major reasons for the reduction of AMT taxpayers after TCJA include the capping of the state and local tax deduction (SALT) by the TCJA at $10,000, and a large increase in the exemption amount and phaseout threshold. A married couple earning $200,000 now requires over $50,000 of AMT adjustments to begin paying the AMT. The AMT previously applied in 2017 and earlier to many taxpayers earning from $200,000 to $500,000 because state and local taxes were fully deductible under the regular tax code but not at all under AMT. Despite the cap of the SALT deduction, the vast majority of AMT taxpayers paid less under the 2018 rules.

The AMT was originally designed to tax high-income taxpayers who used the regular tax system to pay little or no tax. Due to inflation and cuts in ordinary tax rates, many middle-income taxpayers began to pay the AMT. The number of households owing AMT rose from 200,000 in 1982 to 5.2 million in 2017, but was reduced back to 200,000 in 2018 by the TCJA. After the expiry of the TCJA in 2025, the number of AMT taxpayers is expected to rise to 7 million in 2026.

Paternity law refers to the body of law underlying the legal relationship between a father and his biological or adopted children and deals with the rights and obligations of both the father and the child to each other as well as to others. A child's paternity may be relevant in relation to issues of legitimacy, inheritance and rights to a putative father's title or surname, as well as the biological father's rights to child custody in the case of separation or divorce and obligations for child support.

Under common law, a child born to a married woman is presumed to be the child of her husband by virtue of a "presumption of paternity" or presumption of legitimacy. In consideration of a possible non-paternity event (which may or may not include paternity fraud) these presumptions may be rebutted by evidence to the contrary, for example, in disputed child custody and child support cases during divorce, annulment or legal separation.

In the case of a father not married to a child's mother, depending on the laws of the jurisdiction:

a man may accept the paternity of the child in what is called an acknowledgment of paternity, voluntary acknowledgement of paternity or affidavit of parentage,

the mother or legal authorities can file a petition for a determination of paternity against a putative father, or

paternity can be determined by the courts through estoppel over time.

Today, when paternity is in dispute or doubt, paternity testing may be used to conclusively resolve the issue.

Goldman Sachs Group, Inc v Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, (2021), was a 2021 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States related to securities fraud class actions.

Background.

A group of investors sued Goldman Sachs after the financial crisis of 2007–2008 to recover up to $13 billion in losses. In 2020, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit allowed the class action to proceed, 2–1. Judge Richard J Sullivan dissented.

Decision.

The Supreme Court issued its decision in June 2021, vacating the court of appeals' judgment and remanding it for further proceedings. A unanimous court found that the presumption of class-wide reliance established in Basic Inc v Levinson required the defendant's statements to be more than just generic guarantees. An 8–1 court, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissenting, found that the lower court had not adequately followed this framework, and remanded for further proceedings. A 6–3 court, with Justice Neil Gorsuch dissenting, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, held that defendants have the burden of proof in rebutting the presumption of reliance. 

Derivative suits.

Because directors owe their duties to the corporation and not, as a general rule, to specific shareholders or stakeholders, the right to sue for breaches of directors’ duty rests by default with the corporation itself. The corporation is necessarily a party to the suit. This creates a difficulty because almost always, the right to litigate falls under the general powers of directors to manage the corporation day to day (for example, Delaware General Corporation Law §141(a)). Often, cases arise (such as in Broz v Cellular Information Systems Inc) where an action is brought against a director because the corporation has been taken over and a new, non-friendly board is in place, or because the board has been replaced after bankruptcy. Otherwise, there is a possibility of a conflict of interest because directors will be reluctant to sue their colleagues, particularly when they develop personal ties. The law has sought to define further cases where groups other than directors can sue for breaches of duty. First, many jurisdictions outside the US allow a specific percentage of shareholders to bring a claim as of right (for example, 1 percent). This solution may still entail significant collective action problems where shareholders are dispersed, like the US. Second, some jurisdictions give standing to sue to non-shareholder groups, particularly creditors, whose collective action problems are less. Otherwise, third, the main alternative is that any individual shareholder may "derive" a claim on the corporation's behalf to sue for breach of duty, but such a derivative suit will be subject to permission from the court.

Minority shareholder protections.

Ivanhoe Partners v Newmont Mining Corp. (1987) a shareholder owning over 50% of shares is a controlling shareholder; but actual control may also be present through other mechanisms.

Citron v Fairchild Camera & Instrument Corp. (1989) non-controlling shareholders do not owe duties to minority shareholders and may vote their shares for personal gain without concern.

In re Cysive Inc Shareholders Litigation (2003) Nelson Carbonell owned 35% of Cysive, Inc., a publicly traded company. His associates' holdings and options to buy more stock, however, actually meant he controlled around 40% of the votes. Chancellor held that "without having to attract much, if any, support from public stockholders" Carbonell could control the company. This was especially so since "100% turn-out is unlikely even in a contested election" and "40% block is very potent in view of that reality."

Space law is the body of law governing space-related activities, encompassing both international and domestic agreements, rules, and principles. Parameters of space law include space exploration, liability for damage, weapons use, rescue efforts, environmental preservation, information sharing, new technologies, and ethics. Other fields of law, such as administrative law, intellectual property law, arms control law, insurance law, environmental law, criminal law, and commercial law, are also integrated within space law.

The origins of space law date back to 1919, with international law recognizing each country's sovereignty over the airspace directly above their territory, later reinforced at the Chicago Convention in 1944. The onset of domestic space programs during the Cold War propelled the official creation of international space policy (for example, the International Geophysical Year) initiated by the International Council of Scientific Unions. The Soviet Union's 1957 launch of the world's first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1, directly spurred the United States Congress to pass the Space Act, thus creating the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Because space exploration required crossing transnational boundaries, it was during this era where space law became a field independent from traditional aerospace law.

International principles and declarations.

The five treaties and agreements of international space law cover "non-appropriation of outer space by any one country, arms control, the freedom of exploration, liability for damage caused by space objects, the safety and rescue of spacecraft and astronauts, the prevention of harmful interference with space activities and the environment, the notification and registration of space activities, scientific investigation and the exploitation of natural resources in outer space and the settlement of disputes".

The United Nations General Assembly adopted five declarations and legal principles which encourage exercising the international laws, as well as unified communication between countries. The five declarations and principles are:

The Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Uses of Outer Space (1963).

All space exploration will be done with good intentions and is equally open to all States that comply with international law. No one nation may claim ownership of outer space or any celestial body. Activities carried out in space must abide by the international law and the nations undergoing these said activities must accept responsibility for the governmental or non-governmental agency involved. Objects launched into space are subject to their nation of belonging, including people. Objects, parts, and components discovered outside the jurisdiction of a nation will be returned upon identification. If a nation launches an object into space, they are responsible for any damages that occur internationally.

Tax administration.

Taxes in the United States are administered by hundreds of tax authorities. At the federal level there are three tax administrations. Most domestic federal taxes are administered by the Internal Revenue Service, which is part of the Department of the Treasury. Alcohol, tobacco, and firearms taxes are administered by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB). Taxes on imports (customs duties) are administered by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). TTB is also part of the Department of the Treasury and CBP belongs to the Department of Homeland Security.

Organization of state and local tax administrations varies widely. Every state maintains a tax administration. A few states administer some local taxes in whole or part. Most localities also maintain a tax administration or share one with neighboring localities.

Internal Revenue Service.

The Internal Revenue Service administers all U.S. federal tax laws on domestic activities, except those taxes administered by TTB. IRS functions include:

Processing federal tax returns (except TTB returns), including those for Social Security and other federal payroll taxes.

Providing assistance to taxpayers in completing tax returns.

Collecting all taxes due related to such returns.

Enforcement of tax laws through examination of returns and assessment of penalties.

Providing an appeals mechanism for federal tax disputes.

Referring matters to the Justice Department for prosecution.

Publishing information about U.S. federal taxes, including forms, publications, and other materials.

Providing written guidance in the form of rulings binding on the IRS for the public and for particular taxpayers.

The IRS maintains several Service Centers at which tax returns are processed. Taxpayers generally file most types of tax returns by mail with these Service Centers, or file electronically. The IRS also maintains a National Office in Washington, DC, and numerous local offices providing taxpayer services and administering tax examinations.

State administrations.

Every state in the United States has its own tax administration, subject to the rules of that state's law and regulations. For example, the California Franchise Tax Board. These are referred to in most states as the Department of Revenue or Department of Taxation. The powers of the state taxing authorities vary widely. Most enforce all state level taxes but not most local taxes. However, many states have unified state-level sales tax administration, including for local sales taxes.

State tax returns are filed separately with those tax administrations, not with the federal tax administrations. Each state has its own procedural rules, which vary widely.

Before 1776, the American Colonies were subject to taxation by Great Britain and also imposed local taxes. Property taxes were imposed in the Colonies as early as 1634. In 1673, the English Parliament imposed a tax on exports from the American Colonies, and with it created the first tax administration in what would become the United States. Other tariffs and taxes were imposed by Parliament. Most of the colonies and many localities adopted property taxes.

Parenting coordinator (PC) is a relatively new practice used in some US states to manage ongoing issues in high-conflict child custody and visitation cases by professional psychologist or a lawyer assigned by the Court. There are 10 states as of May 2011 that have passed legislation regarding parenting coordinators: Colorado (since 2005), Idaho (2002), Louisiana (2007), New Hampshire (2009), North Carolina (2005), Oklahoma (2001), Oregon (2002), Texas (2005), and Florida (2009). Legislation has been pending in Massachusetts for many years without significant progress.

In September 2014, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court addressed the issue of whether the trial judge had the power to appoint a parenting coordinator without consent of both parties and to give the parenting coordinator binding authority to decide all matters brought before her. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the trial judge lacked the power to appoint the parenting coordinator without consent of both parties, and that the broad authority given to the parenting coordinator by the trial judge constituted "an unlawful delegation of judicial authority." Consequently, the Supreme Judicial Court vacated the appointment order.

Concepts.

The Parenting Coordinators are usually of two types: licensed professionals in a mental health or pastoral field of counseling, or attorneys who are in good standing with their state's Bar Association. The parenting coordinator usually meets with both parties regularly, receives day-to-day questions and complaints about any aspect of a party's conduct, and makes recommendations to the parties. These recommendations effectively become obligatory for parents to follow because the Parental Coordinator can later testify in court about the non-compliance. PC have extremely wide range of issues they can decide on parents' relations with their children, including but not limited to:

In most of the states, there is a law required that court-ordered parenting plans must set forth the minimum amount of parenting time and access (i.e. supervised/unsupervised) a non-custodial parent is entitled to have. According to laws of many states and AFCC guidelines, the Parenting Coordinator cannot change the court order, only the minor changes or clarification of parenting time/access schedules or conditions including vacation, holidays, and temporary variation from the existing parenting plan is allowed.

A PC can limit where parents can and cannot go during his/her daily routine with the child, and what activities are allowed.

PCs can prevent parents from discussing certain topics with their children in their conversations.

PCs can take complaints from either party about almost any subject of the other party's conduct during the past visit and make decisions the parties must abide by. For example, PCs can decide what sports kids will attend, what friends they can visit, what religious services to attend, what food parents can feed them and more.

A PC can make decisions in cases when the parties do not agree on child non-urgent medical care.

A PCs can decide when, where, and how the non-custodial parent's family and friends are allowed to see the children.

A PC can report suspected child abuse to Child Protective Services;

and many other issues that can be considered in the children's best interests.

If either party does not agree with the PC recommendations, then he/she can file a motion with the court to make a decision on the disputed issue. Either party can also ask the court to appoint a new PC to the case but has to provide sufficient evidence to convince the court that valid reasons exist.

Cedar Point Nursery v Hassid, (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case involving eminent domain and labor relations. In its decision, the Court held that a regulation made pursuant to the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act that required agricultural employers to allow labor organizers to regularly access their property for the purposes of union recruitment constituted a per se taking under the Fifth Amendment. Consequently, the regulation may not be enforced unless “just compensation” is provided to the employers.

Background.

In 1975, California's legislature passed the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act to help unions gain access to agriculture workers in the state, which at that time tended to be migratory with the seasons and difficult to contact otherwise. The Act allowed union members, with prior notice to the state's Agricultural Labor Relations Board but without consent of the property owner, to come onto agricultural properties up to three times a day, one hour at a time, up to 120 days during a year, to perform unionization activities.

The dispute arises out of a 2015 effort by agricultural union organizers to persuade workers at a Dorris, California strawberry nursery and at a Central Valley fruit packing operation to join a collective bargaining organization. The visit to the northern California farm was conducted under the 1975 Act. The nursery owner sued for a declaratory judgment and an injunction barring future visits by labor organizers, arguing that the regulation results in a physical taking of property and an unreasonable seizure under the U.S. Constitution.

Both the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the request for an injunction and the nurseries and fruit packer's arguments that state authorization of union organizer visits under the state regulation is a taking of property or an unreasonable seizure. The 2-1 opinion by the appeals court was written by Judge Richard Paez and joined by Judge William A Fletcher. Judge Edward Leavy dissented. Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta wrote a dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc that was joined by 7 other judges.

The California Supreme Court had previously rejected constitutional attacks on the regulation in 1976.

Directors' duties.

While corporate constitutions typically set out the balance of power between directors, shareholders, employees and other stakeholders, additional duties are owed by members of the board to the corporation as a whole. First, rules can restrain or empower the directors in whose favor they exercise their discretion. While older corporate law judgments suggested directors had to promote "shareholder value", most modern state laws empower directors to exercise their own "business judgment" in the way they balance the claims of shareholders, employees, and other stakeholders. Second, all state laws follow the historical pattern of fiduciary duties to require that directors avoid conflicts of interest between their own pursuit of profit, and the interests of the corporation. The exact standard, however, may be more or less strict. Third, many states require some kind of basic duty of care in performance of a director's tasks, just as minimum standards of care apply in any contract for services. However, Delaware has increasingly abandoned substantive objective duties, as it reinterpreted the content of the duty of care, allowing liability waivers.

Stakeholder interests.

Most corporate laws empower directors, as part of their management functions, to determine which strategies will promote a corporation's success in the interests of all stakeholders. Directors will periodically decide whether and how much of a corporation's revenue should be shared among directors' own pay, the pay for employees (for example, whether to increase or not next financial year), the dividends or other returns to shareholders, whether to lower or raise prices for consumers, whether to retain and reinvest earnings in the business, or whether to make charitable and other donations. Most states have enacted "constituency statutes", which state expressly that directors are empowered to balance the interests of all stakeholders in the way that their conscience, or good faith decisions would dictate. This discretion typically applies when making a decision about the distribution of corporate resources among different groups, or in whether to defend against a takeover bid. For example, in Shlensky v Wrigley the president of the Chicago Cubs baseball team was sued by stockholders for allegedly failing to pursue the objective of shareholder profit maximization. The president had decided the corporation would not install flood lights over the baseball ground that would have allowed games to take place at night, because he wished to ensure baseball games were accessible for families before children's bedtime. The Illinois court held that this decision was sound because even though it could have made more money, the director was entitled to regard the interests of the community as more important. Following a similar logic in AP Smith Manufacturing Co v Barlow a New Jersey court held that the directors were entitled to make a charitable donation to Princeton University on the basis because there was "no suggestion that it was made indiscriminately or to a pet charity of the corporate directors in furtherance of personal rather than corporate ends." So long as the directors could not be said to have conflicting interests, their actions would be sustained.

Conflicts of interest.

Since the earliest corporations were formed, courts have imposed minimum standards to prevent directors using their office to pursue their own interests over the interests of the corporation. Directors can have no conflict of interest. In trusts law, this core fiduciary duty was formulated after the collapse of the South Sea Company in 1719 in the United Kingdom. Keech v Sandford held that people in fiduciary positions had to avoid any possibility of a conflict of interest, and this rule "should be strictly pursued".

Custody evaluation (also known as "parenting evaluation") is a legal process, in which a court-appointed mental health expert or an expert chosen by the parties, evaluates a family and makes a recommendation to the court for custody matters, usually including residential custody, visitation and a parenting plan. When performing the custody evaluation, the evaluator is expected to act in the child's best interests.

Procedure.

If the issue of child custody is not settled before trial and the parents have serious concerns about each other's ability to parent the children involved, especially for the high-conflict cases, a child custody evaluation may be ordered by the court. Many states have laws that regulate the appointment of custody evaluators and procedures for evaluation.

The Court can order either a full or a focused evaluation.

A "full evaluation, investigation, or assessment" is a comprehensive examination of the health, safety, welfare, and best interest of the child. A full evaluation typically requires about 15–20 hours of the evaluator's time.

A "focused" evaluation " is an examination of the best interest of the child that is limited by court order in either time or scope. The partial or focused evaluation requires about 12–18 hours of investigation, interviews and report preparation.

Evaluation cost is normally established by the evaluator, but the parents can split the charges according to their court order.

The American Psychological Association publishes guidelines for custody evaluators. Also, Association of Family and Conciliation Courts publish guidelines that apply to the custody evaluators.

Some jurisdictions may commit certain types of dangerous sex offenders to state-run detention facilities following the completion of their sentence if that person has a "mental abnormality" or personality disorder that makes the person likely to engage in sexual offenses if not confined in a secure facility. In the United States, twenty states, the federal government, and the District of Columbia have a version of these commitment laws, which are referred to as "Sexually Violent Predator" (SVP) or "Sexually Dangerous Persons" laws.

Generally speaking, SVP laws have three elements: (1) That the person has been convicted of a sexually violent offense (a term that is defined applicable statutes) (2) That the person suffers from a mental abnormality and/or personality disorder, which causes him/her serious difficulty controlling his/her sexually violent behavior. (3) That this mental abnormality and/or personality disorder makes the person likely to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence if not confined in a secure facility.

A "mental abnormality" is a legal term that is not identical to a mental disorder, though experts generally refer to diagnoses contained in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) as evidence of a mental abnormality.

In most cases, commitment as an SVP is indefinite; however, once a person is committed, the confining agency is constitutionally required to conduct periodic reviews of that person's mental condition. If the committed person's condition changes so he/she no longer meets commitment criteria, he/she must be released. In some circumstances, committed persons can be released to court-monitored conditional releases to less restrictive alternative placements (LRAs).

Property taxes

Most jurisdictions below the state level in the United States impose a tax on interests in real property (land, buildings, and permanent improvements). Some jurisdictions also tax some types of business personal property. Rules vary widely by jurisdiction. Many overlapping jurisdictions (counties, cities, school districts) may have authority to tax the same property. Few states impose a tax on the value of property.

Property tax is based on the fair market value of the subject property. The amount of tax is determined annually based on the market value of each property on a particular date, and most jurisdictions require redeterminations of value periodically. The tax is computed as the determined market value times an assessment ratio times the tax rate. Assessment ratios and tax rates vary widely among jurisdictions, and may vary by type of property within a jurisdiction. Where a property has recently been sold between unrelated sellers, such sale establishes fair market value. In other (i.e., most) cases, the value must be estimated. Common estimation techniques include comparable sales, depreciated cost, and an income approach. Property owners may also declare a value, which is subject to change by the tax assessor.

Customs duties.

The United States imposes tariffs or customs duties on imports of goods. The duty is levied at the time of import and is paid by the importer of record. Customs duties vary by country of origin and product. Goods from many countries are exempt from duty under various trade agreements. Certain types of goods are exempt from duty regardless of source. Customs rules differ from other import restrictions. Failure to properly comply with customs rules can result in seizure of goods and criminal penalties against involved parties. United States Customs and Border Protection ("CBP") enforces customs rules.

Estate and gift taxes.

Estate and gift taxes in the United States are imposed by the federal and some state governments. The estate tax is an excise tax levied on the right to pass property at death. It is imposed on the estate, not the beneficiary. Some states impose an inheritance tax on recipients of bequests. Gift taxes are levied on the giver (donor) of property where the property is transferred for less than adequate consideration. An additional generation-skipping transfer (GST) tax is imposed by the federal and some state governments on transfers to grandchildren (or their descendants).

The federal gift tax is applicable to the donor, not the recipient, and is computed based on cumulative taxable gifts, and is reduced by prior gift taxes paid. The federal estate tax is computed on the sum of taxable estate and taxable gifts and is reduced by prior gift taxes paid. These taxes are computed as the taxable amount times a graduated tax rate (up to 35% in 2011). The estate and gift taxes are also reduced by a "unified credit" equivalent to an exclusion ($5 million in 2011). Rates and exclusions have varied, and the benefits of lower rates and the credit have been phased out during some years.

Taxable gifts are certain gifts of U.S. property by nonresident aliens, most gifts of any property by citizens or residents, in excess of an annual exclusion ($13,000 for gifts made in 2011) per donor per doenee. Taxable estates are certain U.S. property of non-resident alien decedents, and most property of citizens or residents. For aliens, residence for estate tax purposes is primarily based on domicile, but U.S. citizens are taxed regardless of their country of residence. U.S. real estate and most tangible property in the U.S. are subject to estate and gift tax whether the decedent or donor is resident or nonresident, citizen, or alien.

Mahanoy Area School District v B L (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the ability of schools to regulate student speech made off-campus, such as speech made on social media. The case challenged past interpretation of Tinker v Des Moines Independent Community School District and Bethel School District v Fraser, previous Supreme Court decisions related to student speech which may be disruptive to the educational environment, in light of online communications.

The case centered on Brandi Levy, identified as B L in pleadings, a student at Mahanoy Area High School in Mahanoy City, Pennsylvania, who posted an angry, profane Snapchat message from an off-campus location after she failed to make the school's varsity cheerleading squad. Though sent to a private circle of friends and deleted later, the message was shown to school staff, and B L was suspended from cheerleading the next year under the school's policy relating to social media.

B L's parents filed suit on her behalf in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, arguing that the school district had unconstitutionally punished her for speech made completely outside of the school that did not pose a risk of disruption. The District Court held in B L's favor and that the school's policy was beyond its disciplinary reach under Tinker. On appeal to the Third Circuit, a three-judge panel unanimously affirmed this ruling, but the majority opinion stated that Tinker did not extend to any off-campus speech, while a dissenting opinion believed this conclusion was overly broad. The Third Circuit's decision created a circuit split for the Supreme Court to resolve.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Third Circuit's ruling in regard to B L's case in an 8–1 decision in June 2021, though overruled the Third Circuit's opinion related to off-campus speech relative to Tinker. The Court affirmed that through Tinker, schools may have a valid interest to regulate student speech off-campus that is disruptive, but did not define when this regulation can occur, leaving this open for lower courts in future litigation. The Court ruled specifically for B L that the school's interests to prevent disruption under Tinker were not sufficient to overcome her First Amendment rights.

While the board of directors is generally conferred the power to manage the day-to-day affairs of a corporation, either by the statute, or by the articles of incorporation, this is always subject to limits, including the rights that shareholders have. For example, the Delaware General Corporation Law §141(a) says the "business and affairs of every corporation ... shall be managed by or under the direction of a board of directors, except as may be otherwise provided in this chapter or in its certificate of incorporation." However, directors themselves are ultimately accountable to the general meeting through the vote. Invariably, shareholders hold the voting rights, though the extent to which these are useful can be conditioned by the constitution. The DGCL §141(k) gives an option to corporations to have a unitary board that can be removed by a majority of members "without cause" (for example, a reason determined by the general meeting and not by a court), which reflects the old default common law position. However, Delaware corporations may also opt for a classified board of directors (for example, where only a third of directors come up for election each year) where directors can only be removed "with cause" scrutinized by the courts. More corporations have classified boards after initial public offerings than a few years after going public, because institutional investors typically seek to change the corporation's rules to make directors more accountable. In principle, shareholders in Delaware corporations can make appointments to the board through a majority vote, and can also act to expand the size of the board and elect new directors with a majority. However, directors themselves will often control which candidates can be nominated to be appointed to the board. Under the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, §971 empowered the Securities and Exchange Commission to write a new SEC Rule 14a-11 that would allow shareholders to propose nominations for board candidates. The Act required the SEC to evaluate the economic effects of any rules it wrote, however when it did, the Business Roundtable challenged this in court. In Business Roundtable v SEC, Ginsburg J in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals went as far to say that the SEC had "acted arbitrarily and capriciously" in its rulemaking. After this, the Securities and Exchange Commission failed to challenge the decision, and abandoned drafting new rules. This means that in many corporations, directors continue to have a monopoly on nominating future directors.

A habitual offender, repeat offender, or career criminal is a person convicted of a crime who was previously convicted of crimes. Various states and jurisdictions may have laws targeting habitual offenders, and specifically providing for enhanced or exemplary punishments or other sanctions. They are designed to counter criminal recidivism by physical incapacitation via imprisonment.

The nature, scope, and type of habitual offender statutes vary, but generally they apply when a person has been convicted twice for various crimes. Some codes may differentiate between classes of crimes (for example, some codes only deal with violent crime) and the length of time between convictions. Usually, the sentence is greatly enhanced; in some circumstances, it may be substantially more than the maximum sentence for the crime.

Habitual offender laws may provide for mandatory sentencing—in which a minimum sentence must be imposed, or may allow judicial discretion in allowing the court to determine a proper sentence.

A sex offender registry is a system in various countries designed to allow government authorities to keep track of the activities of sex offenders, including those who have completed their criminal sentences. In some jurisdictions, registration is accompanied by residential address notification requirements. In many jurisdictions, registered sex offenders are subject to additional restrictions, including on housing. Those on parole or probation may be subject to restrictions that do not apply to other parolees or probationers. Sometimes, these include (or have been proposed to include) restrictions on being in the presence of underage persons (under the age of majority), living in proximity to a school or day care center, owning toys or items targeted towards children, or using the Internet. Registered sex offenders are not allowed to sign up for or use Facebook or other social media platforms. Sex offender registries exist in many English-speaking countries, including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United States, Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, South Africa, the United Kingdom, Israel, and the Republic of Ireland. The United States is the only country with a registry that is publicly accessible; all other countries in the English-speaking world have sex offender registries only accessible by law enforcement.

Credits

A wide variety of tax credits may reduce income tax at the federal and state levels. Some credits are available only to individuals, such as the child tax credit for each dependent child, American Opportunity Tax Credit for education expenses, or the Earned Income Tax Credit for low income wage earners. Some credits, such as the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, are available to businesses, including various special industry incentives. A few credits, such as the foreign tax credit, are available to all types of taxpayers.

Payment or withholding of taxes.

The United States federal and state income tax systems are self-assessment systems. Taxpayers must declare and pay tax without assessment by the taxing authority. Quarterly payments of tax estimated to be due are required to the extent taxes are not paid through withholdings. The second and fourth "quarters" are not a quarter of a year in length. The second "quarter" is two months (April and May) and the fourth is four months (September to December). Employers must withhold income tax, as well as Social Security and Medicare taxes, from wages. Amounts to be withheld are computed by employers based on representations of tax status by employees on Form W-4, with limited government review.

State variations.

Forty-three states and many localities in the U.S. impose an income tax on individuals. Forty-seven states and many localities impose a tax on the income of corporations. Tax rates vary by state and locality and may be fixed or graduated. Most rates are the same for all types of income. State and local income taxes are imposed in addition to federal income tax. State income tax is allowed as a deduction in computing federal income, but has been capped at $10,000 per household since the passage of the 2017 tax law. Prior to the change, the average deduction exceeded $10,000 in most of the Midwest, most of the Northeast, as well as California and Oregon.

State and local taxable income is determined under state law, and often is based on federal taxable income. Most states conform to many federal concepts and definitions, including defining income and business deductions and timing thereof. State rules vary widely regarding individual itemized deductions. Most states do not allow a deduction for state income taxes for individuals or corporations and impose tax on certain types of income exempt at the federal level.

Some states have alternative measures of taxable income, or alternative taxes, especially for corporations.

States imposing an income tax generally tax all income of corporations organized in the state and individuals residing in the state. Taxpayers from another state are subject to tax only on income earned in the state or apportioned to the state. Businesses are subject to income tax in a state only if they have sufficient nexus in (connection to) the state.

Shared parenting, shared residence, joint residence, shared custody or joint physical custody is a child custody arrangement after divorce or separation, in which both parents share the responsibility of raising their children, with equal or close to equal parenting time. A regime of shared parenting is based on the idea that children have the right to and benefit from a close relationship with both their parents, and that no child should be separated from a parent.

The term Shared Parenting is applied in cases of divorce, separation or when parents do not live together; in contrast, a shared earning/shared parenting marriage is a marriage where the partners choose to share the work of child-raising, earning money, house chores and recreation time in nearly equal fashion across all four domains. Shared parenting is different from split custody, where some children live primarily with their mother while one or more of their siblings live primarily with their father.

Bird's nest custody is an unusual form of shared parenting where the child always lives in the same home, while the two parents take turns living with the child in that home. Its long-term use can be expensive as it requires three residences, and it is most commonly used as a temporary shared parenting arrangement until one parent has found a suitable home elsewhere.

Frequency.

The popularity of shared parenting is increasing. The frequency of shared parenting versus sole custody varies across countries, being most common in Scandinavia.

In a comparative survey of 34 western countries conducted in 2005/06, the proportion of 11-15-year-old children living in a shared parenting arrangement versus sole custody was highest in Sweden (17%), followed by Iceland (11%), Belgium (11%), Denmark (10%), Italy (9%) and Norway (9%). Ukraine, Poland, Croatia, Turkey, the Netherlands, and Romania all had 2% or less. Among the English-speaking countries, Canada and the United Kingdom had 7% while the United States and Ireland had 5%.

Shared parenting is increasing in popularity and it is particularly common in Scandinavia. By 2016/17, the percentage in Sweden had increased to 28%; with 26% for children aged 0-5 years, 34% among the 6-12 year old age group, and 23% among the oldest children ages 13-18.

Collins v Yellen, (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the structure of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). The case follows on the Court's prior ruling in Seila Law LLC v Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which found that the establishing structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), with a single director who could only be removed from office "for cause", violated the separation of powers; the FHFA shares a similar structure as the CFPB. The case extends the legal challenge to the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2008.

In a two-part decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the restriction on removal of the FHFA director by the President was unconstitutional in light of Seila Law, and secondly, dismissed the lawsuit brought against the FHFA by shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as the takeover of these firms was an established power of the agency under terms of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.

Background.

Part of the contributing factors to the subprime mortgage crisis from 2007 to 2010 was the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for-profit government sponsored enterprises (GSE) that purchase mortgages and backed almost half of the mortgages in the United States. Analysis had found that the two GSEs had purchased a number of risky mortgages, those offered at below the prime interest rate as to encourage home ownership, during the housing market peak in 2005 and 2006 and represented a large risk should they fail. At the start of the crisis, the rationalization of the number of these low-interest mortgages disrupted the banking system, causing some larger banks to go into bankruptcy or seek means to avoid this, which disrupted the credit system and further exacerbated the crisis and caused a recession.

Congress passed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 in July of that year to try to stave off the effects of the recession. Among the law's goals included the formation of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), merging the existing Federal Housing Finance Board (FHFB) and Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO). The new FHFA was run by a single Director, with James B. Lockhart III, the prior Director of OFHEO, named to the initial position. In September 2008, Lockhart issued an order to bring in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under FHFA's authority for the purposes of stabilizing both GSEs using funds allocated by Congress as a means to alleviate the mortgage crisis.

As part of this takeover, once the mortgage crisis was subdued in 2012, the FHFA routed the ongoing profits earned by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the Treasury Department on the basis that these funds were needed to offset the taxpayers' costs of the government's intervention to resolve the crisis. The decision also prevents both GSEs from using Treasury funds to pay their shareholders. Shareholders of both companies challenged the government's actions, stating that these decisions prevents the company from building capital and is excessive governmental overreach.

Delegated management and agents.

Although a corporation may be considered a separate legal person, it physically cannot act by itself. There are, therefore, necessarily rules from the corporation statutes and the law of agency that attribute the acts of real people to the corporation, to make contracts, deal with property, commission torts, and so on. First, the board of directors will be typically appointed at the first corporate meeting by whoever the articles of incorporation identify as entitled to elect them. The board is usually given the collective power to direct, manage and represent the corporation. This power (and its limits) is usually delegated to directors by the state's law, or the articles of incorporation. Second, corporation laws frequently set out roles for particular "officers" of the corporation, usually in senior management, on or outside of the board. US labor law views directors and officers as holding contracts of employment, although not for all purposes. If the state law, or the corporation's bylaws are silent, the terms of these contracts will define in further detail the role of the directors and officers. Third, directors and officers of the corporation will usually have the authority to delegate tasks and hire employees for the jobs that need performing. Again, the terms of the employment contracts will shape the express terms on which employees act on behalf of the corporation.

Toward the outside world, the acts of directors, officers and other employees will be binding on the corporation depending on the law of agency and principles of vicarious liability (or respondeat superior). It used to be that the common law recognized constraints on the total capacity of the corporation. If a director or employee acted beyond the purposes or powers of the corporation (ultra vires), any contract would be ex ante void and unenforceable. This rule was abandoned in the earlier 20th century, and today corporations generally have unlimited capacity and purposes. However, not all actions by corporate agents are binding. For instance, in South Sacramento Drayage Co v Campbell Soup Co it was held that a traffic manager who worked for the Campbell Soup Company did not (unsurprisingly) have authority to enter a 15-year exclusive dealing contract for intrastate hauling of tomatoes. Standard principles of commercial agency apply ("apparent authority"). If a reasonable person would not think that an employee (given his or her position and role) has authority to enter a contract, then the corporation cannot be bound. However, corporations can always expressly confer greater authority on officers and employees, and so will be bound if the contracts give express or implied actual authority. The treatment of liability for contracts and other consent-based obligations, however, differs to torts and other wrongs. Here the objective of the law to ensure the internalization of "externalities" or "enterprise risks" is generally seen to cast a wider scope of liability.

Recidivism (/rɪˈsɪdɪvɪzəm/; from recidive and ism, from Latin recidīvus "recurring", from re- "back" and cadō "I fall") is the act of a person repeating an undesirable behavior after they have experienced negative consequences of that behavior. It is also used to refer to the percentage of former prisoners who are rearrested for a similar offense.

The term is frequently used in conjunction with criminal behavior and substance use disorders. Recidivism is a synonym for "relapse", which is more commonly used in medicine and in the disease model of addiction.

United States.

According to an April 2011 report by the Pew Center on the States, the average national recidivism rate for released prisoners is 43%.

According to the National Institute of Justice, almost 44 percent of the recently released return before the end of their first year out. About 68 percent of 405,000 prisoners released in 30 states in 2005 were arrested for a new crime within three years of their release from prison, and 77 percent were arrested within five years, and by year nine that number reaches 83 percent.

Beginning in the 1990s, the US rate of incarceration increased dramatically, filling prisons to capacity in bad conditions for inmates. Crime continues inside many prison walls. Gangs exist on the inside, often with tactical decisions made by imprisoned leaders.

While the US justice system has traditionally focused its efforts at the front end of the system, by locking people up, it has not exerted an equal effort at the tail end of the system: decreasing the likelihood of reoffending among formerly incarcerated persons. This is a significant issue because ninety-five percent of prisoners will be released back into the community at some point.

A cost study performed by the Vera Institute of Justice, a non-profit committed to decarceration in the United States, found that the average per-inmate cost of incarceration among the 40 states surveyed was $31,286 per year.

According to a national study published in 2003 by The Urban Institute, within three years almost 7 out of 10 released males will be rearrested and half will be back in prison. The study says this happens due to personal and situation characteristics, including the individual's social environment of peers, family, community, and state-level policies.

There are many other factors in recidivism, such as the individual's circumstances before incarceration, events during their incarceration, and the period after they are released from prison, both immediate and long term.

One of the main reasons why they find themselves back in jail is because it is difficult for the individual to fit back in with ‘normal’ life. They have to reestablish ties with their family, return to high-risk places and secure formal identification; they often have a poor work history and now have a criminal record to deal with. Many prisoners report being anxious about their release; they are excited about how their life will be different “this time” which does not always end up being the case.

Income tax

Taxes based on income are imposed at the federal, most state, and some local levels within the United States. The tax systems within each jurisdiction may define taxable income separately. Many states refer to some extent to federal concepts for determining taxable income.

History of the income tax.

The first Income tax in the United States was implemented with the Revenue Act of 1861 by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War. In 1895 the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. federal income tax on interest income, dividend income and rental income was unconstitutional in Pollock v Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., because it was a direct tax. The Pollock decision was overruled by the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1913, and by subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decisions including Graves v New York ex rel. O'Keefe, South Carolina v Baker, and Brushaber v Union Pacific Railroad Co.

Basic concepts.

The U.S. income tax system imposes a tax based on income on individuals, corporations, estates, and trusts. The tax is taxable income, as defined, times a specified tax rate. This tax may be reduced by credits, some of which may be refunded if they exceed the tax calculated. Taxable income may differ from income for other purposes (such as for financial reporting). The definition of taxable income for federal purposes is used by many, but far from all states. Income and deductions are recognized under tax rules, and there are variations within the rules among the states. Book and tax income may differ. Income is divided into "capital gains", which are taxed at a lower rate and only when the taxpayer chooses to "realize" them, and "ordinary income", which is taxed at higher rates and on an annual basis. Because of this distinction, capital is taxed much more lightly than labor.

Under the U.S. system, individuals, corporations, estates, and trusts are subject to income tax. Partnerships are not taxed; rather, their partners are subject to income tax on their shares of income and deductions and take their shares of credits. Some types of business entities may elect to be treated as corporations or as partnerships.

Taxpayers are required to file tax returns and self-assess tax. Tax may be withheld from payments of income (for example, withholding of tax from wages). To the extent taxes are not covered by withholdings, taxpayers must make estimated tax payments, generally quarterly. Tax returns are subject to review and adjustment by taxing authorities, though far fewer than all returns are reviewed.

Taxable income is gross income less exemptions, deductions, and personal exemptions. Gross income includes "all income from whatever source". Certain income, however, is subject to tax exemption at the federal or state levels. This income is reduced by tax deductions including most business and some nonbusiness expenses. Individuals are also allowed a deduction for personal exemptions, a fixed dollar allowance. The allowance of some nonbusiness deductions is phased out at higher income levels.

The U.S. federal and most state income tax systems tax the worldwide income of citizens and residents. A federal foreign tax credit is granted for foreign income taxes. Individuals residing abroad may also claim the foreign earned income exclusion. Individuals may be a citizen or resident of the United States but not a resident of a state. Many states grant a similar credit for taxes paid to other states. These credits are generally limited to the amount of tax on income from foreign (or other state) sources.

Alimony (also called aliment (Scotland), maintenance (England, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Wales, Canada, New Zealand), spousal support (U.S., Canada) and spouse maintenance (Australia)) is a legal obligation on a person to provide financial support to their spouse before or after marital separation or divorce. The obligation arises from the divorce law or family law of each country.

Child support.

Alimony is not child support, where, after divorce, one parent is required to contribute to the support of their children by paying money to the child's other parent or guardian.

United States.

Child support is considered a payment that a parent is making for the support of their offspring, and the parent who pays it pays the taxes.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 has changed the federal tax treatment of alimony for divorces and separation agreements signed on or after January 1, 2019, making it identical to that for child support—non-deductible for the payer, and non-taxable for the recipient.

Lange v California, (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the exigent circumstances requirement related to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled unanimously that the warrantless entry into a home by police in pursuit of a misdemeanant is not unequivocally justified.

Background.

In October 2016, a California highway patrol officer witnessed Arthur Lange driving while playing loud music and honking his horn. Believing Lange to be in violation of California traffic law, the officer attempted to perform a traffic stop. Lange drove to his garage and then closed the garage but the officer, who had followed him to his home, entered the garage and began to question Lange. After smelling alcohol on his breath and conducting a field sobriety test, the officer arrested Lange and charged him with driving under the influence and a noise infraction.

Lange attempted to argue at trial that the officer's entry into his garage without a warrant had violated his Fourth Amendment rights and therefore evidence related to the case had to be suppressed. The prosecution argued that under the "hot pursuit doctrine" the officer had probable cause to enter the garage because Lange had committed a misdemeanor when he failed to stop for the officer. The court subsequently denied Lange's motion to suppress the evidence. As a result, Lange's driver's license was suspended for a period of one year.

Initial appeals.

Lange filed a suit to overturn the suspension of his license in civil court which was accepted after the court determined his arrest to be unlawful. However, the Sonoma County Superior Court affirmed the decision of the trial court to deny Lange's motion to suppress. The California Court of Appeal also upheld the conviction. In July 2020, Lange applied for a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court which was granted in October 2020.

Corporations are invariably classified as "legal persons" by all modern systems of law, meaning that like natural persons, they may acquire rights and duties. A corporation may be chartered in any of the 50 states (or the District of Columbia) and may become authorized to do business in each jurisdiction it does business within, except that when a corporation sues or is sued over a contract, the court, regardless of where the corporation's headquarters office is located, or where the transaction occurred, will use the law of the jurisdiction where the corporation was chartered (unless the contract says otherwise). So, for example, consider a corporation which sets up a concert in Hawaii, where its headquarters are in Minnesota, and it is chartered in Colorado, if it is sued over its actions involving the concert, whether it was sued in Hawaii (where the concert is located), or Minnesota (where its headquarters are located), the court in that state will still use Colorado law to determine how its corporate dealings are to be performed.

All major public corporations are also characterized by holding limited liability and having a centralized management. When a group of people go through the procedures to incorporate, they will acquire rights to make contracts, to possess property, to sue, and they will also be responsible for torts, or other wrongs, and be sued. The federal government does not charter corporations (except National Banks, Federal Savings Banks, and Federal Credit Unions) although it does regulate them. Each of the 50 states plus DC has its own corporation law. Most large corporations have historically chosen to incorporate in Delaware, even though they operate nationally, and may have little or no business in Delaware itself. The extent to which corporations should have the same rights as real people is controversial, particularly when it comes to the fundamental rights found in the United States Bill of Rights. As a matter of law, a corporation acts through real people that form its board of directors, and then through the officers and employees who are appointed on its behalf. Shareholders can in some cases make decisions on the corporation's behalf, though in larger companies they tend to be passive. Otherwise, most corporations adopt limited liability so that generally shareholders cannot be sued for a corporation's commercial debts. If a corporation goes bankrupt and is unable to pay debts to commercial creditors as they fall due, then in some circumstances state courts allow the so-called "veil of incorporation" to be pierced, and so to hold the people behind the corporation liable. This is usually rare and in almost all cases involves non-payment of trust fund taxes or willful misconduct, essentially amounting to fraud.

A pardon is a government decision to allow a person to be relieved of some or all of the legal consequences resulting from a criminal conviction. A pardon may be granted before or after conviction for the crime, depending on the laws of the jurisdiction.

Pardons can be granted in many countries when individuals are deemed to have demonstrated that they have "paid their debt to society” or are otherwise considered to be deserving of them. Pardons are sometimes offered to persons who were either wrongfully convicted or who claim that they were wrongfully convicted. In some jurisdictions of some nations, accepting a pardon may implicitly constitute an admission of guilt; the offer is refused in some cases. Cases of wrongful conviction are in recent times more often dealt with by appeal rather than by pardon; however, a pardon is sometimes offered when innocence is undisputed in order to avoid the costs that are associated with a retrial. Clemency plays a critical role when capital punishment exists in a jurisdiction.

Pardons are sometimes seen as a mechanism for combating corruption, allowing a particular authority to circumvent a flawed judicial process to free someone that is seen as wrongly convicted. Pardons can also be a source of controversy. In extreme cases, some pardons may be seen as acts of corruption by officials in the form of granting effective immunity as political favors.

The United States of America has separate federal, state, and local governments with taxes imposed at each of these levels. Taxes are levied on income, payroll, property, sales, capital gains, dividends, imports, estates and gifts, as well as various fees. In 2010, taxes collected by federal, state, and municipal governments amounted to 24.8% of GDP. In the OECD, only Chile and Mexico are taxed less as a share of their GDP.

Taxes fall much more heavily on labor income than on capital income. Divergent taxes and subsidies for different forms of income and spending can also constitute a form of indirect taxation of some activities over others. For example, individual spending on higher education can be said to be "taxed" at a high rate, compared to other forms of personal expenditure which are formally recognized as investments.

Taxes are imposed on net income of individuals and corporations by the federal, most state, and some local governments. Citizens and residents are taxed on worldwide income and allowed a credit for foreign taxes. Income subject to tax is determined under tax accounting rules, not financial accounting principles, and includes almost all income from whatever source. Most business expenses reduce taxable income, though limits apply to a few expenses. Individuals are permitted to reduce taxable income by personal allowances and certain non-business expenses, including home mortgage interest, state and local taxes, charitable contributions, and medical and certain other expenses incurred above certain percentages of income. State rules for determining taxable income often differ from federal rules. Federal marginal tax rates vary from 10% to 37% of taxable income. State and local tax rates vary widely by jurisdiction, from 0% to 13.30% of income,[2] and many are graduated. State taxes are generally treated as a deductible expense for federal tax computation, although the 2017 tax law imposed a $10,000 limit on the state and local tax ("SALT") deduction, which raised the effective tax rate on medium and high earners in high tax states. Prior to the SALT deduction limit, the average deduction exceeded $10,000 in most of the Midwest, and exceeded $11,000 in most of the Northeastern United States, as well as California and Oregon. The states impacted the most by the limit were the tri-state area (NY, NJ, and CT) and California; the average SALT deduction in those states was greater than $17,000 in 2014.

The United States is one of two countries in the world that taxes its non-resident citizens on worldwide income, in the same manner and rates as residents; the other is Eritrea. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of imposition of such a tax in the case of Cook v Tait.

A parenting plan is a child custody plan that is negotiated by parents, and which may be included in a marital separation agreement or final decree of divorce. Especially when a separation is acrimonious to begin with, specific agreements about who will discharge these responsibilities and when and how they are to be discharged can reduce the need for litigation. Avoiding litigation spares parties not only the financial and emotional costs of litigation but the uncertainty of how favorable or unfavorable a court's after-the-fact decision will be. Moreover, the agreement itself can authorize the employment of dispute-resolution methods, such as arbitration and mediation, that may be less costly than litigation.

Legal separation (sometimes judicial separation, separate maintenance, divorce a mensa et thoro, or divorce from bed-and-board) is a legal process by which a married couple may formalize a de facto separation while remaining legally married. A legal separation is granted in the form of a court order. In cases where children are involved, a court order of legal separation often makes child custody arrangements, specifying sole custody or shared parenting, as well as child support. Some couples obtain a legal separation as an alternative to a divorce, based on moral or religious objections to divorce.

Legal separation does not automatically lead to divorce. The couple might reconcile, in which case they do not have to do anything in order to continue their marriage.

Yellen v Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation, (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the classification of Alaska Native corporations (ANCs) for purposes of receiving funds set-aside for tribal governments under the CARES Act. In a 6–3 decision issued in June 2021, the Court ruled that ANCs were considered to be "Indian tribes" and were eligible to receive the set-aside funds.

 Background.

Twelve Alaska Native corporations (ANCs) were established in the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act as for-profit corporations to operate businesses and services, often in the areas of oil and gas industry, to generate revenue that provides benefits to the Alaska Natives in the territories that they serve. This arrangement is unique to Alaska compared to native American tribes in the lower 48 states, where they operating their own tribal governments in recognized Indian reservations within federal law. Later, the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (ISDA) assured that both native American tribal governments and ANCs were given the self-autonomy to operate as governments for their respective peoples.

With the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. government passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security, or CARES Act in March 2020. The bill provided $2.2 trillion in relief funding to businesses, of which $8 billion was earmarked for "tribal governments". The Treasury Department, in interpreting the law, opted to set aside about $500 million of the $8 billion earmarked for ANCs.

The Treasury's decision was challenged separately by three Native tribes: the Navajo Nation, the Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. They asserted that the ANCs were not officially recognized as tribal governments under the language of ISDA, and thus were ineligible to receive any of the CARES funds. The Native tribes expressed concern that the amount of funds available to them would be diluted if the ANC set-aside were allowed to stand. The three suits were consolidated at the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The district court ruled in favor of the Treasury Department, in that the ANCs could be considered tribal governments and eligible to receive CARES Act funds. The tribes appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which reversed the District Court's ruling. The Circuit Court ruled that as no ANC is federally recognized, compared to the tribal governments, they fail to qualify for the CARES Act funding.

United States corporate law regulates the governance, finance and power of corporations in U S law. Every state and territory has its own basic corporate code, while federal law creates minimum standards for trade in company shares and governance rights, found mostly in the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by laws like the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 and the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The U S Constitution was interpreted by the U S Supreme Court to allow corporations to incorporate in the state of their choice, regardless of where their headquarters are. Over the 20th century, most major corporations incorporated under the Delaware General Corporation Law, which offered lower corporate taxes, fewer shareholder rights against directors, and developed a specialized court and legal profession. Nevada has done the same. Twenty-four states follow the Model Business Corporation Act, while New York and California are important due to their size.

A miscarriage of justice, also known as a wrongful conviction, occurs when a person is convicted and punished for a crime that he or she did not actually commit. It can occur in both criminal and civil proceedings, which includes removal proceedings. The main contributing factors are eyewitness misidentification, faulty forensic analysis, false confessions by vulnerable suspects, perjury and lies told by witnesses, misconduct by police, prosecutors or judges and inadequate defense strategies put forward by the defendant's legal team.

The Innocence Project keeps statistics on cases where convicted defendants have subsequently been exonerated, usually by advances in the science of DNA. In many instances, wrongful convictions have not been overturned for several decades - sometimes after the innocent person has been executed, released from custody, or has died. The true prevalence of miscarriages of justice is hard to measure because many wrongful convictions are never overturned.

The term is not to be confused with "errors of impunity" which applies to cases where a guilty person goes free.

In the United States, strict constructionism is a particular legal philosophy of judicial interpretation that limits or restricts such interpretation only to the exact wording of the law (namely the Constitution).

 Strict sense of the term.

Strict construction requires a judge to apply the text only as it is written. Once the court has a clear meaning of the text, no further investigation is required. Judges—in this view—should avoid drawing inferences from a statute or constitution and focus only on the text itself. Jurist Hugo Black (1886–1971) argued that the First Amendment's injunction, that Congress shall make no law (against certain civil liberties), should be construed strictly: no law, though Black, admits no exceptions. However, "strict construction" is not a synonym for textualism or originalism. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a major proponent of textualism, said that "no one ought to be" a strict constructionist, although to be a strict constructionist was preferred to being a "non-textualist".

The term often contrasts with the phrase "judicial activism", used to describe judges who seek to enact legislation through court rulings.

Common use.

"Strict constructionism" is also used in American political discourse as an umbrella term for conservative legal philosophies such as originalism and textualism, which emphasize judicial restraint and fidelity to the original meaning of constitutions and laws. It is frequently used even more loosely to describe any conservative judge or legal analyst. This usage is pervasive, but in some tension with the legal meaning of the term. For example, on the campaign trail in 2000, when speaking on his choices for new Supreme Court Justices, George W Bush promised to appoint "strict constructionists in the mold of Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas", though Thomas considers himself an originalist, and Scalia outright rejected strict construction, calling it "a degraded form of textualism."

Grounds for divorce are regulations specifying the circumstances under which a person will be granted a divorce. Adultery is the most common grounds for divorce. However, there are countries that view male adultery differently than female adultery as grounds for divorce.

Before decisions on divorce are considered, one might check into state laws and country laws for legal divorce or separation as each culture has stipulations for divorce.

No-fault divorce is a divorce in which the dissolution of a marriage does not require a showing of wrongdoing by either party. Laws providing for no-fault divorce allow a family court to grant a divorce in response to a petition by either party of the marriage without requiring the petitioner to provide evidence that the defendant has committed a breach of the marital contract.

HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC v Renewable Fuels Association, (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with exemptions from blending requirements for small refineries set by the Renewable Fuel Standard program. The case dealt with the statutory interpretation of the congressional language for extending the exemption, if this allowed a lapse in the exemption or not. In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that by the majority's interpretation of the law, the congressional law did allow for refineries to seek extensions after their exemption period had lapsed.

Background.

Congress established the Renewable Fuel Standard program as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to promotion the production of renewable fuels. The program, managed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), requires oil refineries to blend in renewable fuels, such as ethanol, into their products produced from fossil fuels. The amount to blend increased each year. As the program progressed, Congress recognized that the blending requirements created potentially disproportionate economic hardships for smaller refineries, those that produced less than 75,000 barrels per year, and created an temporary exemption in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 for smaller refineries lasting through 2010. Congress instructed the Department of Energy (DOE) to study if there were disproportionate impacts of this blending requirements on the smaller refineries from which then the EPA could then grant extensions to the original exemption for smaller refiners. DOE did conclude that such hardships did exist, leading the EPA to begin issuing extensions of the original exemption, requiring the refinery to annually reapply for further extensions.

The case at hand involves three small refineries who had either failed to file for an extension in 2011 or failed to renew their extension with the EPA: HollyFrontier Woods Cross Refining LLC, HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining LLC, and Wynnewood Refining Company. After their exemption period has expired, the three refineries separately sought a new extension to the exemption from the EPA, which the EPA granted. As more exemptions were being passed during the Trump administration, the EPA's decisions to allow for these three refineries to have disrupted extended exemptions was challenged in court by several renewable fuels associations. The associations argued that the congressional language around the Renewable Fuels Program meant that once a small refinery's exemption extension had expired, the exemption could no longer be prolonged. The refineries argued that the language of the law suggested an extension may be applied for "at any time” and did not require a continuous exemption period. The consolidated suit was brought directly to the Tenth Circuit, where the court overturned the EPA's decision, stating the agency exceeded its authority, and agreed with the renewable fuel associations' assertion that by interpretation of "extension", there had to be an exemption to extend in place already.

A blind trust is a trust in which the trust beneficiaries have no knowledge of the holdings of the trust, and no right to intervene in their handling. In a blind trust, the trustees (fiduciaries, or those who have been given power of attorney) have full discretion over the assets. Blind trusts are generally used when a trust creator (sometimes called a settlor, trustor, grantor, or donor) wishes for the beneficiary to be unaware of the specific assets in the trust, such as to avoid conflict of interest between the beneficiary and the investments. 

Politicians, or others in sensitive positions (such as journalists and religious leaders) often place their personal assets (including investment income) into blind trusts, to avoid public scrutiny and accusations of conflicts of interest when they direct government funds to the private sector.

A Totten trust (also referred to as a "Payable on Death" account) is a form of trust in the United States in which one party (the settlor or "grantor" of the trust) places money in a bank account or security with instructions that upon the settlor's death, whatever is in that account will pass to a named beneficiary. For example, a Totten trust arises when a bank account is titled in the form ", in trust for ".

Forced heirship is a form of testate partible inheritance which mandates how the deceased's estate is to be disposed and which tends to guarantee an inheritance for family of the deceased. 

In forced heirship, the estate of a deceased is separated into two portions. (1) An indefeasible portion, the forced estate, passing to the deceased's next-of-kin. (2) A discretionary portion, or free estate, to be freely disposed of by will. Forced heirship is generally a feature of civil-law legal systems which do not recognize total freedom of testation, in contrast with common law jurisdictions. 

Normally in forced heirship, the deceased's estate is in-gathered and wound up without discharging liabilities, which means accepting inheritance includes accepting the liabilities attached to inherited property. The forced estate is divided into shares which include the share of issue (legitime or child's share) and the spousal share. This provides a minimum protection that cannot be defeated by will. The free estate, on the other hand, is at the discretion of a testator to be distributed by will on death to whomever he or she chooses. Takers in the forced estate are known as forced heirs. 

The expression comes from Louisianan legal language and is ultimately a calque of Spanish

Probation in criminal law is a period of supervision over an offender, ordered by the court instead of serving time in prison. 

In some jurisdictions, the term probation applies only to community sentences (alternatives to incarceration), such as suspended sentences. In others, probation also includes supervision of those conditionally released from prison on parole. 

An offender on probation is ordered to follow certain conditions set forth by the court, often under the supervision of a probation officer. During the period of probation, an offender faces the threat of being incarcerated if found breaking the rules set by the court or probation officer. 

Offenders are ordinarily required to maintain law-abiding behavior, and may be ordered to refrain from possession of firearms, remain employed, participate in an educational program, abide a curfew, live at a directed place, obey the orders of the probation officer, or not leave the jurisdiction. The probationer might be ordered as well to refrain from contact with the victims (such as a former partner in a domestic violence case), with potential victims of similar crimes (such as minors, if the instant offense involves child sexual abuse), or with known criminals, particularly co-defendants. Additionally, offenders can be subject to refrain from use or possession of alcohol and drugs and may be ordered to submit alcohol/drug tests or participate in alcohol/drug psychological treatment. Offenders on probation might be fitted with an electronic tag (or monitor), which signals their movement to officials. Some courts permit defendants of limited means to perform community service in order to pay off their probation fines.

Textualism is a formalist theory in which the interpretation of the law is primarily based on the ordinary meaning of the legal text, where no consideration is given to non-textual sources, such as intention of the law when passed, the problem it was intended to remedy, or significant questions regarding the justice or rectitude of the law.

Definition.

The textualist will "look at the statutory structure and hear the words as they would sound in the mind of a skilled, objectively reasonable user of words." The textualist thus does not give weight to legislative history materials when attempting to ascertain the meaning of a text. Textualism is often erroneously conflated with originalism, and was advocated by United States Supreme Court Justices such as Hugo Black and Antonin Scalia; the latter staked out his claim in his 1997 Tanner Lecture: " is the law that governs, not the intent of the lawgiver." Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., although not a textualist himself, well-captured this philosophy, and its rejection of intentionalism: "We ask, not what this man meant, but what those words would mean in the mouth of a normal speaker of English, using them in the circumstances in which they were used ... We do not inquire what the legislature meant; we ask only what the statutes mean."

Textualists argue courts should "read the words of that text as any ordinary Member of Congress would have read them." They look for the meaning "that a reasonable person would gather from the text of the law, placed alongside the remainder of the corpus juris ." The textualist cares about the statutory purpose to the extent that is suggested from the text.

Textualist judges have contended, with much practical impact, that courts should not treat committee reports or sponsors' statements as authoritative evidence of legislative intent. These judges base their resistance to that interpretive practice on two major premises: first, that a 535-member legislature has no "genuine" collective intent concerning the proper resolution of statutory ambiguity (and that, even if it did, there would be no reliable basis for equating the views of a committee or sponsor with the "intent" of Congress as a whole); second, that giving weight to legislative history offends the constitutionally mandated process of bicameralism and presentment.

— John F Manning, "Textualism as a Nondelegation Doctrine".

Strict constructionism is often misused by laypersons and critics as a synonym for textualism. Nevertheless, although a textualist could be a strict constructionist, these are distinctive views. To illustrate this, we may quote Justice Scalia, who warns that "extualism should not be confused with so-called strict constructionism, a degraded form of textualism that brings the whole philosophy into disrepute. I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be... A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means." Similarly, textualism should not be confused with the "plain meaning" approach, a simpler theory used prominently by the Burger Court in cases such as Tennessee Valley Authority v Hill, which looked to the dictionary definitions of words, without reference to common public understanding of context.

Adultery (from Latin adulterium) is extramarital sex that is considered objectionable on social, religious, moral, or legal grounds. Although the sexual activities that constitute adultery vary, as well as the social, religious, and legal consequences, the concept exists in many cultures and is similar in Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Adultery is viewed by many jurisdictions as offensive to public morals, being a mistreatment of the marriage relationship.

Historically, many cultures considered adultery a very serious crime, some subject to severe punishment, usually for the woman and sometimes for the man, with penalties including capital punishment, mutilation, or torture. Such punishments have gradually fallen into disfavor, especially in Western countries from the 19th century. In countries where adultery is still a criminal offense, punishments range from fines to caning and even capital punishment. Since the 20th century, criminal laws against adultery have become controversial, with most Western countries decriminalizing adultery.

TransUnion LLC v Ramirez, (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with standing under Article III of the Constitution related to class-action suits against private defendants. In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that only those that can show concrete harm have standing to seek damages against private defendants.

Background.

Sergio Ramirez had been in the process of purchasing a new car in 2011, and as typically done, had his credit rating reviewed by the dealership. Using of the credit rating agencies, TransUnion, his name was checked not only against financial databases but alongside a list maintained by the federal Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of known terrorists and other known criminals that would be illegal to conduct business with. As his name matched one of those on the OFAC's list - but otherwise had no relation to the known criminal - the dealership told him this direct in front of family members and denied selling him the car. Ramirez queried TransUnion for copies of his credit report in the following days, which still indicated that Ramirez was considered a potential criminal. Eventually, TransUnion distinguished Ramirez's credit record as unconnected to the OFAC list.

Ramirez filed suit against TransUnion in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in 2012, asserting that TransUnion's means of using simple name matching to the OFAC list, they were violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which was created to allow victims of false credit reporting to seek remedies. Ramirez sought and obtained class-action status for his suit, with over 8,000 other individuals that similarly had been matched against the OFAC list due to sharing of the same name and who had been notified by TransUnion. A jury trial awarded the class damages of $60 million in 2016, though on appeal to the Ninth Circuit in 2020, the damages were reduced to $40 million. During both the jury trial and at appeal, TransUnion objected to the validity of the class-action suit under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, claiming that the class members had not shown demonstrable harm and thus lacked Article III standing to bring suit. However, the courts rejected TransUnion's argument.

An advance healthcare directive, also known as living will, personal directive, advance directive, medical directive or advance decision, is a legal document in which a person specifies what actions should be taken for their health if they are no longer able to make decisions for themselves because of illness or incapacity. In the U.S. it has a legal status in itself, whereas in some countries it is legally persuasive without being a legal document.

A living will is one form of advance directive, leaving instructions for treatment. Another form is a specific type of power of attorney or health care proxy, in which the person authorizes someone (an agent) to make decisions on their behalf when they are incapacitated. People are often encouraged to complete both documents to provide comprehensive guidance regarding their care, although they may be combined into a single form. An example of combination documents includes the Five Wishes in the United States. The term living will is also the commonly recognized vernacular in many countries, especially the U.K.

Background.

Advance directives were created in response to the increasing sophistication and prevalence of medical technology. Numerous studies have documented critical deficits in the medical care of the dying; it has been found to be unnecessarily prolonged, painful, expensive, and emotionally burdensome to both patients and their families.

Parole is the early release of a prisoner who agrees to abide by certain conditions, originating from the French word "parole" ("speech, spoken words" but also "promise"). The term became associated during the Middle Ages with the release of prisoners who gave their word.

This differs greatly from pardon, amnesty or commutation of sentence in that parolees are still considered to be serving their sentences, and may be returned to prison if they violate the conditions of their parole.

Development of modern parole.

Alexander Maconochie, a Scottish geographer and captain in the Royal Navy, introduced the modern idea of parole when, in 1840, he was appointed superintendent of the British penal colonies in Norfolk Island, Australia. He developed a plan to prepare them for eventual return to society that involved three grades. The first two consisted of promotions earned through good behaviour, labour, and study. The third grade in the system involved conditional liberty outside of prison while obeying rules. A violation would return them to prison and they would start all over again through the ranks of the three-grade process. He reformed its ticket of leave system, instituting what many consider to be the world's first parole system. Prisoners served indeterminate sentences from which they could be released early if they showed evidence of rehabilitation through participation in a graded classification system based on a unit of exchange called a mark. Prisoners earned marks through good behavior, lost them through bad behavior, and could spend them on passage to higher classification statuses ultimately conveying freedom.

In an instance of multiple discovery, in 1846, Arnould Bonneville de Marsangy proposed the idea of parole (which he termed "preparatory liberations") to the Civil Tribunal at Reims.

The purposive approach (sometimes referred to as purposivism, purposive construction, purposive interpretation, or the modern principle in construction) is an approach to statutory and constitutional interpretation under which common law courts interpret an enactment (a statute, part of a statute, or a clause of a constitution) within the context of the law's purpose.

Purposive interpretation is a derivation of the mischief rule set in Heydon's Case, and intended to replace the mischief rule, the plain meaning rule and the golden rule. Purposive interpretation is used when the courts use extraneous materials from the pre-enactment phase of legislation, including early drafts, hansards, committee reports, and white papers. The purposive interpretation involves a rejection of the exclusionary rule.

Israeli jurist Aharon Barak views purposive interpretation as a legal construction that combines elements of the subjective and objective. Barak states that the subjective elements include the intention of the author of the text, whereas the objective elements include the intent of the reasonable author and the legal system’s fundamental values.

Critics of purposivism argue it fails to separate the powers between the legislator and the judiciary, as it allows more freedom in interpretation by way of extraneous materials in interpreting the law.

Historical origins.

Plain meaning rule.

The plain meaning rule gained popularity during the 18th and 19th centuries as the courts took an increasingly strict view of the words within statutes. Under the plain meaning rule, the words of the statute are given their natural or ordinary meaning. The plain meaning rule of statutory interpretation should be the first rule applied by judges.

One of the leading statements of the plain meaning rule was made by Chief Justice Nicholas Conyngham Tindal in the Sussex Peerage case (1844), concerning whether Augustus d'Este succeeded to the titles of his father Prince Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex, in particular whether the marriage of his father and mother was valid under the Royal Marriages Act 1772:

... the only rule for the construction of Acts of Parliament is that they should be construed according to the intent of the Parliament which passed the Act. If the words of the statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense. The words themselves alone do, in such a case, best declare the intention of the lawgiver.

Strict application of the plain meaning rule can sometimes result in "absurd" outcomes. Examples of the plain meaning rule producing absurd outcomes can be seen in the following cases:

In Whitely v Chappel (1868) a statute made it an offence "to impersonate any person entitled to vote". The defendant used the vote of a dead man. The statute relating to voting rights required a person to be living in order to be entitled to vote. The plain meaning rule was applied and the defendant was thus acquitted.

In R v Harris (1836) the defendant had bitten off his victim's nose. But because the statute made it an offence "to stab cut or wound" the court held that under the plain meaning rule the act of biting did not come within the meaning of stab cut or wound as these words implied an instrument had to be used. The defendant's conviction was overturned.

In Fisher v Bell (1961) the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1958 made it an offence to "offer for sale" an offensive weapon. The defendant had a flick knife displayed in his shop window with a price tag on it. Statute made it a criminal offence to "offer" such flick knives for sale. His conviction was overturned as goods on display in shops are not "offers" in the technical sense but an invitation to treat. The court applied the plain meaning rule of statutory interpretation.

Grounds for divorce are regulations specifying the circumstances under which a person will be granted a divorce. Adultery is the most common grounds for divorce. However, there are countries that view male adultery differently than female adultery as grounds for divorce.

Before decisions on divorce are considered, one might check into state laws and country laws for legal divorce or separation as each culture has stipulations for divorce.

Grounds for divorce.

Cruel and inhuman treatment constitute grounds for divorce. In a proper defense, acceptable differences enable the defendant to have the ability to arrange grounds for divorce.

Some examples for grounds for divorce are:

Sexual harassment,

Attendant circumstance,

Adultery,

Alcoholism,

Disability,

Desertion,

Imprisonment, and,

Domestic violence (Including physical, sexual, or mental abuse of the other spouse and/or the child/children of the couple.)

The spouse that is responsible for committing these allegations is required to confirm the correct date and place that the allegations were committed. The reason for the spouse to confirm the allegations is to show proof that the allegations have taken place in the same state. The state then has to have the authority to administer justice by hearing and determining the controversies. Different states accept different grounds for divorce. For example, some states only accept no-fault divorce where other states accept both fault and no-fault grounds for divorce.

Minerva Surgical, Inc. v Hologic, Inc was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the principle of assignor estoppel and its application. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle of assignor estoppel, however with the exception that the doctrine is only applied when assignors assertions are actually consistent with previous representations as to the patent. The majority decision was written by Justice Kagan, with Justice Alito and Justice Barrett filing separate dissenting opinions.

An inheritance tax is a tax paid by a person who inherits money or property of a person who has died, whereas an estate tax is a levy on the estate (money and property) of a person who has died.

International tax law distinguishes between an estate tax and an inheritance tax—an estate tax is assessed on the assets of the deceased, while an inheritance tax is assessed on the legacies received by the estate's beneficiaries. However, this distinction is not always observed; for example, the UK's "inheritance tax" is a tax on the assets of the deceased, and strictly speaking is therefore an estate tax.

For historical reasons, the term death duty is still used colloquially (though not legally) in the UK and some Commonwealth countries. For political, statutory and other reasons, the term death tax is sometimes used to refer to estate tax in the United States.

Life imprisonment is any sentence of imprisonment for a crime under which convicted people are to remain in prison either for the rest of their natural lives or until pardoned, paroled or otherwise commuted to a fixed term. Crimes for which, in some countries, a person could receive this sentence include murder, attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, apostasy, terrorism, severe child abuse, rape, child rape, espionage, treason, high treason, drug dealing, drug trafficking, drug possession, human trafficking, severe cases of fraud, severe cases of financial crimes, aggravated criminal damage in English law, and aggravated cases of arson, kidnapping, burglary, or robbery which result in death or grievous bodily harm, piracy, aircraft hijacking, and in certain cases genocide, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, certain war crimes or any three felonies in case of three-strikes law. Life imprisonment (as a maximum term) can also be imposed, in certain countries, for traffic offenses causing death. Life imprisonment is not used in all countries; Portugal was the first country to abolish life imprisonment, in 1884.

Indefinite imprisonment or indeterminate imprisonment is the imposition of a sentence by imprisonment with no definite period of time set during sentencing. It was imposed by certain nations in the past, before the drafting of the United Nations Convention against Torture (CAT). The length of an indefinite imprisonment was determined during imprisonment based on the inmate's conduct. The inmate could have been returned to society or be kept in prison for life. Such a sentence is unconstitutional today, particularly in the United States.

In the United States, habitual offender laws (commonly referred to as three-strikes laws) were first implemented on March 7, 1994, and are part of the United States Justice Department's Anti-Violence Strategy. These laws require both a severe violent felony and two other previous convictions to serve a mandatory life sentence in prison. The purpose of the laws is to drastically increase the punishment of those convicted of more than two serious crimes.

Twenty-eight states have some form of a "three-strikes" law. A person accused under such laws is referred to in a few states (notably Connecticut and Kansas) as a "persistent offender", while Missouri uses the unique term "prior and persistent offender". In most jurisdictions, only crimes at the felony level qualify as serious offenses; however, misdemeanor and wobbler offenses can qualify for application of the three-strikes law in California, whose harsh application has been the subject of controversy.

The three-strikes law significantly increases the prison sentences of persons convicted of a felony who have been previously convicted of two or more violent crimes or serious felonies and limits the ability of these offenders to receive a punishment other than a life sentence.

The expression "Three strikes and you are out" is derived from baseball, where a batter against whom three strikes are recorded strikes out.

In the context of United States law, originalism is a concept regarding the interpretation of the Constitution that asserts that all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding "at the time it was adopted". This concept views the Constitution as stable from the time of enactment and that the meaning of its contents can be changed only by the steps set out in Article Five. This notion stands in contrast to the concept of the Living Constitution, which asserts that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the context of current times and political identities, even if such interpretation is different from the original interpretations of the document. Living constitutionalists sometimes argue that we cannot apply an original understanding of the Constitution because the document is too old and too cryptic.

Proponents of originalism argue that originalism has historically been the primary method of legal interpretation in America from the time of its founding until the time of the New Deal, when competing theories of interpretation grew in prominence. Originalism was used by proponents of segregation to argue in opposition to civil rights legislation during the 1960s. Originalism is an umbrella term for interpretative methods that hold to the "fixation thesis", the notion that an utterance's semantic content is fixed at the time it is uttered. Originalists seek one of two alternative sources of meaning:

The original intent theory, which holds that interpretation of a written constitution is (or should be) consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it. This is currently a minority view among originalists. Alfred Avins and Raoul Berger (author of Government by Judiciary) are associated with this view.

The original meaning theory, which is closely related to textualism, is the view that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have understood the ordinary meaning of the text to be. Most originalists, such as Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett, are associated with this view.

Such theories share the view that there is an identifiable original intent or original meaning, contemporaneous with the ratification of a constitution or statute, which should govern its subsequent interpretation. The divisions between the theories relate to what exactly that identifiable original intent or original meaning is: the intentions of the authors or the ratifiers, the original meaning of the text, a combination of the two, or the original meaning of the text but not its expected application.

Adultery (from Latin adulterium) is extramarital sex that is considered objectionable on social, religious, moral, or legal grounds. Although the sexual activities that constitute adultery vary, as well as the social, religious, and legal consequences, the concept exists in many cultures and is similar in Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Adultery is viewed by many jurisdictions as offensive to public morals, being a mistreatment of the marriage relationship.

Historically, many cultures considered adultery a very serious crime, some subject to severe punishment, usually for the woman and sometimes for the man, with penalties including capital punishment, mutilation, or torture. Such punishments have gradually fallen into disfavor, especially in Western countries from the 19th century. In countries where adultery is still a criminal offense, punishments range from fines to caning and even capital punishment. Since the 20th century, criminal laws against adultery have become controversial, with most Western countries decriminalizing adultery.

However, even in jurisdictions that have decriminalized adultery, it may still have legal consequences, particularly in jurisdictions with fault-based divorce laws, where adultery almost always constitutes a ground for divorce and may be a factor in property settlement, the custody of children, the denial of alimony, etc. Adultery is not a ground for divorce in jurisdictions which have adopted a no-fault divorce model.

International organizations have called for the decriminalization of adultery, especially in the light of several high-profile stoning cases that have occurred in some countries. The head of the United Nations expert body charged with identifying ways to eliminate laws that discriminate against women or are discriminatory to them in terms of implementation or impact, Kamala Chandrakirana, has stated that: "Adultery must not be classified as a criminal offence at all". A joint statement by the United Nations Working Group on discrimination against women in law and in practice states that: "Adultery as a criminal offence violates women’s human rights".

In Muslim countries that follow Sharia law for criminal justice, the punishment for adultery may be stoning. There are fifteen countries in which stoning is authorized as lawful punishment, though in recent times it has been legally carried out only in Iran and Somalia. Most countries that criminalize adultery are those where the dominant religion is Islam, and several Sub-Saharan African Christian-majority countries, but there are some notable exceptions to this rule, namely Philippines, and several U.S. states. In some jurisdictions, having sexual relations with the king's wife or the wife of his eldest son constitutes treason