Legal Fundaments - Science topic

In South African law, attorneys can charge fees equivalent to those of advocates when representing clients in the High Court, but it depends on the court's discretion and the nature of representation. Generally, attorneys and advocates have distinct fee structures, but courts have allowed attorneys to claim advocates’ fees in certain cases.

A key case is Rautenbach v RAF (2012), where the court permitted an attorney to recover fees at an advocate’s rate when performing similar work. Courts consider factors like the complexity of the case, the attorney’s experience, and whether an advocate would have typically been briefed.

Another relevant case is City of Johannesburg v Kaplan NO (2006), where the court recognized circumstances where attorneys could claim higher fees. Uniform Rule 69 also provides guidance on taxation of costs.

To ensure advocate-level fees, attorneys must justify their role as equivalent to an advocate’s in legal complexity and expertise.

El topic 842 requiete una no revaloracion del arrendamiento

This is a good starting point Eckardt. It provides brief summaries of views on climate change by global region. You can identify the ones you wish to get more detail on and then search for specific philosophical material for that region.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_opinion_by_country

The Curia of Hungary, as the highest instance judicial forum of the country, has the constitutional duty to harmonise the administration of justice within the Hungarian judiciary, mainly by means of rendering uniformity decisions. The Curia renders uniformity decisions in cases rasing issues of theoretical importance in order to ensure the uniform application of law within the Hungarian judiciary. Such decisions are binding on all Hungarian courts. The operative parts of uniformity decisions – as brief summaries – are accessible hereunder:

Providing the interview is carried out by highly trained and specialist officers these intreviews can provide essential evidence.

Sorry for the late reply. Thank you!

I'll be another vote for mediation.  In our appellate court, cases come to us where they have already been decided at the trial level, whether as a matter of law by the judge, or as the result of a trial where evidence was taken. One might think that having an adjudicated "winner" and "loser" would tend to make the parties' positions more entrenched, and the parties less likely to change their views--particularly the "winners"  However, we do have a mediation office, to which we refer many cases which, in the judgment of our staff attorneys and judges are perhaps not so clear-cut.  Our mediator (whose surname is really Rambo) successfully mediates settlements about 40% of the time he is given a case, to the tune of perhaps 40 a year (our total caseload is about 900).  This is a significant achievement by an exceptionally gifted mediator, but demonstrates that even in situations where the legal posture of a dispute is more solidly established than before it would get to court, mediation can be an extremely successful way of bringing parties together to see a collaborative solution to difficult problems.

A written account is a doctors report of his visit or his consult. Because it is written by the doctor the report might not be completely objective. An audio/video record seems to be more objective, but by using just cerain parts of the conversation to formulate a complaint or in a law suit the truth might be twisted. Both the record or the written account can be used by the patient. The written account can be used by the doctor in defense of a criminal charge or complaint.

In the Netherlands it is prohibited to record a conversation without consent. Laws may differ in other countries, but some kind of privacy protection (not only for patients) is established in many countries.

A court (I am writing of the commn law tradition) may take the approach that it has to interpret the law in front of it, but there is a principle that in case of lack of clarity in a criminal statute it should be construed in favour of the accused -- see the Canadian Suprem Court case of R. v. McLaughlin (1980 (attached). 

A court may, especially when faced with a constitutional/human rights challenge to a statute "read it down" -- this is not restricted to vague statutes. Indeed a court would probably prefer to use the interpretation approach rather than reading down because the latter is actually changing the expressed (or maybe the apparent) will of the legislature.

Another approach may be to hold legislation invalid (unconstitutional) because of vagueness. Not that the constitution necessarily expressly say law must be clear, but because the court holds that a human right cannot be limited other than by law that is clear. Especially if the constitution says that a limitation on rights must be "by law".  See the Kenyan case of Coalition for Reform and Democracy v Republic of Kenya (2015) (attached) especially paragraphs 259-263 and 275-76.  

I have limited myself to a very few comments and those on the common law. Of course similar approaches are to be found in other systems and in the European Court. 

I am also attaching a section from an English Court of Appeal case  in 2004 (quoted in a  House of Lords case in 2005) which covers quite a lot of ground.

Sorry, but I do not understand the question. I have never heard of "7 pronouncements of US Courts on Constitutional reform". 

The dying declaration exception to the rule against hearsay permits out of court statements by a person to prove the matter they asserted out of court. At its narrowest the witness must be dead, that is generally no longer the case. They must however been in imminent fear of death. Their testimony is allowed because it is presumed the fear of death will make them more honest, whether for religious or practical grounds, and also because the dead witness is as unavailable as it gets. scholar.google.com or ssrn.com are good starting points. i do not yet know how to research through academia.edu or researchgate. this is a well known topic. u.s. federal rules of evidence fre are online for free as a pdf just sarch.

Mental illness would technically be a defence to a war crime since anyone suffering from it would have the valid defence of being unable to form the mens rea for any crime.

Adolf Hitler was however not insane and did not suffer from mental illness at the time the war crimes of the 3rd Reich were planned and started.  Had Hitler been mentally ill he would not have been able to maintain control of the state and the equally criminal individuals within it.   

The crimes of the 3rd Reich could not have been the product of mental illness since they were carried out collectively by thousands of individuals often acting in the absence of any traceable orders.  Apart from the rantings at his speeches and the sinister threats in Mein Kampf there is no written evidence that Hitler himself ordered many of the most bestial of crimes committed in this regimes name.  His Lieutenants were all very keen to please and executing the Fuhrer's wish was enough motivation to those with similar hideously distorted world views.

Being a citizen of a country that in essence has defaulted, my response focuses on the macro-level of national economies.  I would say public interest  turns into a goal to be achieved in bankruptcy --and urgently--when despite all debt restructuring and austerity measures, an economy with its inherent sociocultural characteristics does not react in a formulaic way (contraction of debt, boost in productivity and development, lowering of unemployment), but instead goes deeper into recession following a downward spiral.  There are no one-size-fits all models despite the disciplinary crescento of neoliberalism evangelists; each country has its own particular features and indicators which dictate the need for a custom made model of consolidation and return to growth.  So the yardstick would be an assessment/diagnostic tool that needs to be developed and applied to national economies, with different scales and ratings that would depict in great accuracy the characteristics and the dynamics of each particular economy/society, and would serve as the springboard for the development of a unique strategy that can realistically produce results.

Based on Venice Commission's recent report on the Rule of Law the "following definition by Tom Bingham covers most appropriately the essential

elements of the rule of law." 

“All persons and authorities within the state , whether public or private, should be bound by and entitled to the benefit of laws publicly made, taking effect (generally) in the future and publicly administered in the courts”.

As the authors of the report indicated there are very consensual elements covered by the term and these are: 1) Legality, including a transparent, accountable and democratic process for enacting law

(2) Legal certainty

(3) Prohibition of arbitrariness

(4) Access to justice before independent and impartial courts, including judicial review of administrative acts

(5) Respect for human rights

(6) Non-discrimination and equality before the law.

Find the full report at http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2011)003rev-e

The solution is not legal but an honest appraisal of the objective and how to achieve it. Maybe counseling on taking responsibility for oneself. Value oriented camps, that introduce you to social service, open your eyes to real needs could help.

In one sentence, law sets the minimum standard of human behavior while ethics sets maximum standard of human behavior. Law prescribes remedies and punishments for the violation of the standards it sets while ethics expects an ideal set of behavior of individuals concerned. The success of any law in a particular society depends upon its social acceptance in that society. Both law and morality influence each other. Some times law becomes instrumental to bring about social change e.g. social evils such as slavery has been eradicated to a great extent but sometimes a law becomes meaningless due to its persistent denial by the society as in the case of marriage dowry in India. Moral and ethical values can be instrumental in guiding the law making.

You must be careful when you refer to possession. At least in South American law possession is a variable completely different property. As well questions, I think the difference between the two questions is exactly the same.

Right to possession or right of possession is exactly the same just change the item used. Depends on how much you are to say one or the other definition. The point is that the right of possession is the same and explains:

Possession is the sum of the animus (intent to possess) + corpus.

The property is the sum of the animus + corpus + domain title.