9

Yes. The absence of immunity for a U.S. President's unofficial acts was established both in the Nixon Administration and later in the Clinton Administration. In practice, a prosecutor would be loath to file such charges absent very, very solid probable cause, and a court would often be very deferential in accommodating the President's schedule and, for ...


5

In the U.S are judges, attorneys, physicians, teachers, professors, politicians, administrative officers liable for ordinary negligence? In the U.S., judges, prosecuting attorneys and legislators have absolute immunity from civil liability (but not from criminal liability) for legislative and judicial acts in their official capacity. Attorneys have ...


4

Yes. The president is bound by the Constitution. The president may be immune from prosecution or from civil suits while he holds the office, but that does not mean he is not obligated to abide by the Constitution. While he is in office, he is subject to sanction for misconduct by Congress, and when he leaves office, he is generally subject to prosecution ...


3

The US President is indeed bound by the Constitution, and indeed by the ordinary laws. Current Justice Department policy is that a sitting president may not be indited. No court has ever held this, the US Constitution does not give explicit presidential immunity the way it gives limited immunity to members of congress (in the "speech and debate" clause). No ...


3

No. This is not possible. You cannot give consent to homicide, and only the state can provide immunity from prosecution. Consent is not a "justification" or "excuse" under Oregon law, as those terms are defined in its penal code (there is nothing even remotely close in the definition of the relevant terms). Assisting suicide under Oregon law is, however, a ...


2

A few key points: The only way you can recover anything is with a lawsuit or the threat of a lawsuit. There are special procedural and substantive hurdles involved in suing a governmental entity which is a specialized area of tort law that varies significantly from state to state. It is likely that there is liability under a governmental waiver of the ...


2

Any society that makes rules will make rules that generally favor the people in power. Police are an essential component of a system that is built to maintain power for the people who are powerful, and there are few incentives for politicians, prosecutors or judges to punish them for maintaining order, even when they do so in ways that most people would ...


2

My answer pertains to Washington, which has a similar law. The circumstances where it is legal for one person to intentionally kill another are highly limited in all states: using Washington terminology, you must be justified, and "because he asked me to" is not an legal justification. "Death with dignity" does not allow a doctor to kill a patient, it allows ...


1

Yes, property owned by governments, including state governments, is generally exempt from property taxes in the US. (A list of the exemptions as of 2000 is available here.) The governments that are exempt in New Hampshire are listed in Ch 72 ยง23 of the New Hampshire Statutes, Real Estate and Personal Property Tax Exemption." These include the state, ...


1

In all these of judges etc cases they receive more than enough indenization for assuming responsibility. By freeing them from ordinary negligence we are making them negligent. Other than political economics why would the legislator free them from such responsibility? Judges are precisely the ones rendering this question within scope of Law SE -...


1

Sovereign Immunity means you cannot sue the state itself. It does not apply to an employee or official of the state who is doing something not authorized by state law. Presumably no law authorizes the state to embezzle, or to commit fraud. So if someone does that, even acting with purported governmental authority, that person is simply a criminal who is also ...


1

could the defendant then also admit to some additional, only marginally-related crime? I suppose, but why would he or she? Or something altogether unrelated? Again, of course that could happen, but it is not clear what motivation there would be to admit to random crimes unrelated to what the person is being questioned about. are strict limits on ...


1

Generally speaking it is up to jury. Juries usually make awards only if they think the defendant was grossly negligent or they have some kind of special sympathy for the victim, like the victim is old and blind or something like that. There are numerous factors that can affect the outcome: (1) How much time elapsed between the snowfall and the accident? (2)...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible