Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that California's retroactive extension of the statute of limitations for sexual offenses committed against minors was an unconstitutional ex post facto law. [2]
A statute of limitations is a law that sets the maximum time for legal proceedings after an event. Learn about its purpose, applications, exceptions, and variations in different jurisdictions and legal systems.
The tort has seen particular use in North Carolina. [8] In the case of Cannon v. Miller, 71 N.C. App. 460, 322 S.E.2d 780 (1984), the North Carolina Court of Appeals (the state's intermediate appellate court) abolished the tort of criminal conversation, as well as the tort of alienation of affections, in the state.
North Carolina has statutorily capped damages from nuisance claims to the value of the plaintiff's property. The law, which overrode a gubernatorial veto to pass in 2017, was criticized in the aftermath of Hurricane Florence , which resulted in significant nuisance litigation against regional hog-farming conglomerate Smithfield Foods due to the ...
The Penal Code of California is the main source of criminal law and procedure in the state. It consists of six parts, each with several titles and sections, covering various types of crimes and related topics.
Learn about the legal definitions, penalties, and exceptions for child sexual abuse in different states and under federal law. Find out how the Supreme Court ruled on the death penalty for child rape and the civil commitment of sex offenders.
Tolling is a legal doctrine that allows for the pausing or delaying of the running of the period of time set forth by a statute of limitations, such that a lawsuit may potentially be filed even after the statute of limitations has run. Learn about the grounds, effects, and variations of tolling in different jurisdictions, such as England, the United States, and Arizona.
According to the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, violations of the law are subject to criminal penalties. For violating some of the more major premises of the Act, the punishment can be up to a $10,000 fine and a 3-year prison term. [2] Notable cases: 'People v. Hawkins' (2002) [3] [4]