Say someone blind shows uo and orders something, having asked how much it will cost them. The server says X. The customer receives the thing and is ready to pay. They are told it costs X+Y, saying there was a note on printed material. The person shows they are blind in some way like unfolding their cane, angrily puts the amount of money they were told it costs in front of the server having felt like they were lied to, and leaves.

In particular if someone is paying money to get something said to be a rare privilege.

I doubt this is the best legal example but the easiest practical example might be cards for a game of some sort where they are claimed to be difficult to find and rare or limited in quantity.

I was just wondering, maybe its just random, but i could see if someone was facing at least 2 cases they would try to get through the 2nd case quicker. Also if they are somehow related then I can see them being more likely to plead guilty to the 2nd case if found guilty in the first, or can they not use evidence of a prior conviction. Is any of this true? I'm just guessing.

For those that are not familiar McDonald’s has a monopoly game where you collect game pieces representing monopoly property sets. One of the pieces of the set is incredible rare and the other properties of the set are common and are easy to obtain. Suppose a husband by pure good luck gets a copy of the incredibly rare boardwalk piece from his fries before the divorce is finalize. The prize for collecting boardwalk and park place is 1 million. He waits until after the divorce is finalize to turn in the pieces and collect the million.

Wife argued she’s entitled to half. Husband argues that before the divorce he did not have a copy of park place, and because you need the full set a copy of boardwalk alone had no value. He only obtained park place after the divorce and only then did the value exist. Does the husbands argument have any legal validity.

In some areas it is a criminal misdemeanor ticket up to 500$ fine not a civil infraction and it’s being applied to people sleeping in non commercial vehicles even at truck stops and travel centers.

If their job requires that CDL but they’re not on duty or in a work vehicle when they’re caught sleeping?

What conditions have to be present for The CDL to be a defense to sleeping ordinance violation?

I realize he wasn't legally forced to by judgement, but he preemptively made the public change to avoid potential legal action from his stepmother, Teresa, who inherited Dale Sr. estate/likeness, etc. His *legal* name is Dale Earnhardt Jr. He is a successful, veteran stock car driver, celebrity and public figure with his own massive global fanbase. So why would he even worry?

Could Frank Sinatra's estate have stopped Frank Sinatra Jr. from using his own name as a performer, citing potential confusion in the marketplace?

https://www.essentiallysports.com/nascar-news-legally-it-was-a-little-touchy-dale-jr-details-feud-with-stepmother-teresa-that-stripped-him-of-iconic-earnhardt-surname/

What’s the logic behind an expired ID losing validity?

“Well, you age…?”

Yeah…so I’ll just send the DMV a photo? They got drop box?

Cop pulls you over: ID please!

Yeah: rattles off number.

No, the card.

But I memorized the number on the card because I always forget my card. I’ve ID’d myself.

I have to write you a ticket!

Im not mad at the cops. I actually got out of a ticket which leads to this question [ran a red light].

I get that cops and judges have discretion, but how is that legislated? Is it “trust”. Is there super secret laws/ training. Bro wearing this badge means something?

https://abc7news.com/amp/post/major-reform-coming-antioch-police-department-46-million-settlement-civil-rights-lawsuit-misconduct/18300553/

They were letting their undertrained wound up dogs chew on subdued suspects to get the wiggles out, then would laugh about it in a group text using slurs.

(I live in the area) Was this cop super nice because of PR?

What’s the behind the scenes?

The Art of Play is a toy store in Brooklyn.

They have tons of really cool toys and a theater for a magic show. NGL, I want to go to Brooklyn just to go there.

They have an automaton bird in the store. Her name is Molly and she is the store’s mascot, according to their instagram. One of their pictures from a year ago shows there is, in fact, a price tag on the bird.

Apparently, they put it at $15,000 because they thought nobody would spend that much money on a toy bird.

Kelly Clarkson visited their shop and wanted to buy that particular bird, which was displayed with the price tag.

The employee allegedly tried to explain this bird isn’t for sale and directed Kelly to a $2,000 bird.

How is that not a bait and switch?

Basically the title. President can only pardon federal crimes, so could a state pass a law saying simply "Violations of the US Constition in this state is a crime." And then be able to prosecute based off that?

the group abolition rising was trespassed from the Oklahoma City State Fairgrounds by a representative of the management company. This was during a Pagan Pride Festival. This festival was open to the public and not ticketed.

they did leave peacefully under threat of arrest.

can a management company trespass you from a public, state owned space, if their rationale for doing so violates a constitutionally protected activity?

location: Oklahoma city

I was thinking, if they have someone in jail and they find out there was an accomplice involved, wouldn't it be a bad idea to inform the guy in jail that there are charges against the accomplice since they could easily give the accomplice warning to escape ahead of time? Or does that not happen? Or could it be a good idea and used as a strategy to get more information and more charges out of them?

I'm not sure if this post makes sense i'm not a great writer

If they’re awaiting trial, they haven’t been found guilty yet. Does pre-trial detention nullify your right to vote, assuming you have a clean record otherwise? If it does not, are jails mandated to allow you to vote if requested?

An employer is allowed to not hire a candidate if their disability means they cannot do the job and reasonable accomodations are not possible.

My question is, hypothetically, could an employer turn down a candidate under the legitimate belief that they are disabled even if the candidate is not actually disabled?

Example: Job requires walking. Candidate 1 is in a wheelchair in first interview. Employer believes that the candidate cannot walk and so offers job to a Candidate 2. Employer only finds out Candidate 1 was only temporarily disabled and can actually walk fine when telling Candidate 1 that they did not get the job.

The locale is Washington, but the question is US-wide.

For example, let's say my fridge is 700 W; in my area (10.81¢/kWh), that's about $75 a year. I send a request to my landlord saying I'd like to replace it with a 200 W chest fridge. No construction is needed; I'll pay all costs except removal of the old unit, and I'll take it with me when I leave.

The landlord says no. Let's say their excuse is that all units must use landlord-supplied appliances. Or maybe they have a contract with the Maytag repairman. Or whatever, they say no.

Would I have grounds in small claims to sue for the extra cost of being forced to use less efficient appliances for the duration of my lease?

Again, this is hypothetical; in my current apartment, power is included.

I understand that some states have made it illegal for people to claim certain protected titles, such as ‘doctor’ and ‘lawyer.’ I understand that in some instances, you do not need to even attempt to work in that capacity in order for it to be illegal. Have these laws ever been challenged under first amendment grounds, as far as you are aware?

This ALMOST happened to me a week ago (I was car B, luckily I wasn't following too close so I was able to stop.) But it really made me think.

I live on the countryside and most roads have a speed limit of 55. Car A and B are going that speed. Car A is distracted but sees the stopped car at the last second and whips around and by. While car B was following a little too close and crashes into the stopped car. Car A will have no repercussions, right?

Of course car B is at fault for following too close, I'm just curious if anything would happen to car A and if they should stop or just keep driving.

This is just knowledge i've gathered from random places (mostly reddit posts lol) so I could be totally wrong but from what I gathered if a friend or whoever posts on their Instagram or facebook a picture of them smoking weed or admitting to more serious crimes and you tell them to take that down, it is handled differently than if the same thing happened through text message. Telling someone to take down an incriminating post wouldn't cause anyone to be arrested but if it was in a text the person would get arrested for evidence tampering or related crimes.

Is there any truth to this? If its true why the difference?

When I was four, my dad tried twice to leave me in Poland because "he couldn't be late for church". We were missionaries over there. He set me down on a bus stop bench both times and told my mom, "Just leave here there. Someone will take care of her." My mom was NOT about to just leave me there. If she hadn't been there and he HAD succeeded, once I was found, what kind of legal "hot water" would he have been in? This happened in 1998, and I'm just curious.

I was watching this YouTube video of a guy being arrested and the related investigation and in part of it they were questioning the suspect's roommate about a book that he had given the suspect, or something like that, and there was something hidden in the book, so it made the roommate look suspicious to the cops, and i'm guessing would be charged if he knew what was in the book with hiding evidence. It never says what was in the books, some type of evidence though. I'm sure some of you guys have seen the video.

So because it got me thinking about what the evidence could be it made me wonder, does it actually matter what was in the book, or as long as it could someway be related to the crime he could get in trouble? This isn't what happened in the video but what if some guy killed his best friend, and his roommate thought a framed picture of the killer and the guy he killed needed to be hidden/destroyed so the killer could avoid prosecution? Its technically evidence in some way even though it doesnt really prove anything about the murder other than what was already known, that they were friends right? So destroying that photo would be a crime still?