Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Laws of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (also known as the Pamphlet Laws or just Laws of Pennsylvania, as well as the Acts of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania) is the compilation of session laws passed by the Pennsylvania General Assembly. [1]
Within the laws of the United States, The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, also known as H.R. 347, Pub. L. 112–98 (text), is a federal law in the United States allowing the Secret Service extra jurisdiction to make arrests and suppress protests in cases of trespass on restricted locations and intentional disruption of government functions.
Title 18 of the United States Code is the main criminal code of the federal government of the United States. [1] The Title deals with federal crimes and criminal procedure.In its coverage, Title 18 is similar to most U.S. state criminal codes, typically referred to by names such as Penal Code, Criminal Code, or Crimes Code. [2]
Trespass is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person (see below), trespass to chattels, and trespass to land. Trespass to the person historically involved six separate trespasses: threats, assault, battery, wounding, mayhem (or maiming), and false imprisonment. [ 1 ]
The Pennsylvania Code is a publication of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, listing all rules, regulations, and other administrative documents from the Government of Pennsylvania. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] Citation
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Transferred intent is the legal principle that intent can be transferred from one victim or tort to another. [1] 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 ...
The attractive nuisance doctrine emerged from case law in England, starting with Lynch v. Nurdin in 1841. In that case, an opinion by Lord Chief Justice Thomas Denman held that the owner of a cart left unattended on the street could be held liable for injuries to a child who climbed onto the cart and fell. [3]