Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

ivil Remedies A few states have special provisions for the bringing of civil actions by the elderly. If an older person in Nevada suffers personal injury or death caused by abuse or neglect or suffers a loss of money or property by exploitation, the offender may be ordered to pay up to two times the actual damages incurred. If the offender acted with recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice, the court shall order the person to pay the attorney's fees and costs of the person who initiated the lawsuit. In Georgia, the elderly may recover actual and punitive damages and attorney's fees for injury resulting from unfair or deceptive business practices.

Section 402 allows a court, in its discretion, to award attorneys' fees to a prevailing party in suits to enforce the voting guarantees of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments, and statutes enacted under those amendments. This section is similar to provisions in Titles II and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibit discrimination in public accommodations and employment, and to Section 403 of this act (the coverage of which is described below). Such a provision is appropriate in voting rights cases because there, as in employment and public accommodations cases, and other civil rights cases, Congress depends heavily upon private citizens to enforce the fundamental rights involved. Fee awards are a necessary means of enabling private citizens to vindicate these Federal rights. It is intended that the standards for awarding fees under sections 402 and 403 be generally the same as under the fee provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. A party seeking to enforce the rights protected by the Constitutional clause or statute under which fees are authorized by these sections, if successful, "should ordinarily recover an attorney's fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust." Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402, 88 S.Ct. 964, 19 L.Ed.2d 1263 (1968). . . . In several hearings held over a period of years, the Committee has found that fee awards are essential if the Constitutional requirements and Federal statutes to which sections 402 and 403 apply are to be fully enforced. We find that the effects of such fee awards are ancilliary (sic) and incident to securing compliance with these laws, and that fee awards are an integral part of the remedies necessary to obtain such compliance. Fee awards are therefore provided in cases covered by sections 402 and 403 in accordance with Congress' powers under, inter alia, the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5. As with cases brought under 20 U.S.C. § 1617, the Emergency School Ai

Section 402 allows a court, in its discretion, to award attorneys' fees to a prevailing party in suits to enforce the voting guarantees of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments, and statutes enacted under those amendments. This section is similar to provisions in Titles II and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibit discrimination in public accommodations and employment, and to Section 403 of this act (the coverage of which is described below). Such a provision is appropriate in voting rights cases because there, as in employment and public accommodations cases, and other civil rights cases, Congress depends heavily upon private citizens to enforce the fundamental rights involved. Fee awards are a necessary means of enabling private citizens to vindicate these Federal rights. It is intended that the standards for awarding fees under sections 402 and 403 be generally the same as under the fee provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. A party seeking to enforce the rights protected by the Constitutional clause or statute under which fees are authorized by these sections, if successful, "should ordinarily recover an attorney's fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust." Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402, 88 S.Ct. 964, 19 L.Ed.2d 1263 (1968). . . . In several hearings held over a period of years, the Committee has found that fee awards are essential if the Constitutional requirements and Federal statutes to which sections 402 and 403 apply are to be fully enforced. We find that the effects of such fee awards are ancilliary (sic) and incident to securing compliance with these laws, and that fee awards are an integral part of the remedies necessary to obtain such compliance. Fee awards are therefore provided in cases covered by sections 402 and 403 in accordance with Congress' powers under, inter alia, the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5. As with cases brought under 20 U.S.C. § 1617, the Emergency School Ai

There is much litigation over the question whether a particular wrong allegedly perpetrated by a defendant upon a plaintiff is the type of conduct that the civil rights act was designed to remedy. Many claimed infractions of the law do not give rise to a civil rights violation. Suit is allowed only if the defendant deprives a person of his or her rights under the federal laws or the United States Constitution. Weber v. City of Cedarburg, 129 Wis. 2d 57, 384 N.W.2d 333 (1986). The civil rights statute does not create any substantive rights. Penterman v. Wisconsin Electric Power Co., 211 Wis. 2d 458, 565 N.W.2d 521 (1997). The procedural protections of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment will only be triggered if state action implicates a constitutionally protected interest in life, liberty or property. Board of Regents v. Roth, 498 U.S. 564 (1972)(no constitutional tort was involved in non-renewal of contract of non-tenured teacher). Nothing in the 14th Amendment protects against all government deprivations of life, liberty or property. Only deprivations without due process of law are protected. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, (1984)(shakedown of prison inmate not actionable unless solely for the purpose of harassing or humiliating plaintiff) http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:mOG9ycDK1QwJ:www.pittslaw.com/_pittslaw.09_/Pages/civil_rights_claims.html+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

FOURTH QUESTION PRESENTED Must boards disclose investigative information that they receive from police agencies? SHORT ANSWER Investigative information that a board receives from a police agency is not "privileged" or "confidential" under ORS 676.175(3) and boards must disclose that information if it was obtained in the investigation of the allegations in the notice and if no other exception applies

unclaimed funds, County can use for other county exspenses, such as victim funds

The fundamental barrier to applying that privilege to information obtained in board investigations is that board investigations are not conducted "for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services to the client." ORS 676.165 provides, in relevant part: (1) Upon receipt of a complaint by any person against a licensee or applicant, a health professional regulatory board shall assign one or more persons to act as investigator of the complaint. (2) The investigator shall collect evidence and interview witnesses and shall make a report to the board. The investigator shall have all investigatory powers possessed by the board. (3) The report to the board shall describe the evidence gathered, the results of witness interviews and any other information considered in preparing the report of the investigator. The investigator shall consider, and include in the report, any disciplinary history of the licensee or applicant with the board. That statute vests authority to direct investigations into complaints about licensees or applicants in boards, not the attorney general's office. It also clarifies that board investigations are not conducted "for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services," but to carry out the boards' statutorily-mandated duty to investigate the complaints it receives. Nor do we believe that substituting an investigator from the Department of Justice for an investigator employed by the board to carry out the investigation would alter the statutory purpose of such investigations and render them to be "for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services."

Victim and Witness Intimidation: New Developments and Emerging Responses October 1995 Prosecutors in some jurisdictions report an increase in victim and witness intimidation: some prosecutors have estimated intimidation as a factor in 75 to 100 percent of the violent crimes committed in some gang-dominated neighborhoods. Victim and Witness Intimidation: New Developments and Emerging Responses summarizes recent developments in gang- and drug-related intimidation of victims and witnesses, current responses to the problem by police and prosecutors, and emerging models and strategies for its prevention and suppression.

Even though this is concidered a crime and serious it was not concidered at all in the elder Nye Frank homicide. 73 year old Lee Frank and her neighbors were stalked for months after Nye Frank was killed. The sheriff, APS and DA office all notified and did not do anything. Looking at the parties involved and the political connections and what the father says on the recorcding it obvious who this Goverment agency is protecting. One of their own not the victim.