The standard jargon for an appeal application is that the
lower 'Court did not [correctly ?] apply its mind to' various
issues. I'm suspecting that this wording is perhaps not just
another nauseating politeness, but has real legal signifcance.

Is there a legal significance between the Court 'arrived at the
wrong conclusion' and 'did not apply its mind to' re. appeal
applications ?

== TIA.

The standard jargon for an appeal application is that the
lower 'Court did not [correctly ?] apply its mind to' various
issues. I'm suspecting that this wording is perhaps not just
another nauseating politeness, but has real legal signifcance.

Is there a legal significance between the Court 'arrived at the
wrong conclusion' and 'did not apply its mind to' re. appeal
applications ?

== TIA.

Since criminal law applies between the citizen and the state,
and civil law applies between private citizens, where does
Administrative law fit on this spectrum ?

Particularly law re. land taxes - owing to a municipal authority ?

Apparently under criminal law the accused has more protection
than a civil accused. What is the reason, and what reasoning
applies to an admin-law defendant, on this issue ?

What is the basis for the principle in law that 'charges are handles
differently to taxes' ? Ie. it happens that the key issue was
whether the amount was a 'charge' or a 'tax'.

No it's not a school project, but I want the abstract theory
before 'rule clerks' give me street wise 'how it works in their
town/jurisdiction'.

== TIA

nospam wrote:

nospam wrote:

Correct, because the mechanism which he used to get majority
control is irrelevant to my topic: quasi partnership relations
follow the principle that partners owe extreme fiduiary duty
'inter se', and NOT like public companies.

OTOH it IS relevant that when they 'started' [ie. before the
'breakdown'] the 50/50 is a STRONG indication of a partnership
INTENTION ....

OP cited extract of law report:
BEN-TOVIM v BEN-TOVIM AND OTHERS 2001 (3) SA 1074,
where it was reported that [now divorceing] hysband & wife owned
50%% each in private company, and he manipulated her into a minority
position and together with the extra/new shareholder out-voted her.
Her application to the S.African court for relief was refused, on the
well known Foss v Harbottle principles of UK law, where SA follows,
with some years lag the UK commercial law. OTOH, UK & commonwealth
jurisdictions have accepted the 'quasi partnership principle', which
applies to small, closely-held, especially by family members, PRIVATE
companies. Since one recent case in S.Africa succeeded on these grounds,
the OP contends that the BEN-TOVIM application whould have succeeded
too if the applicant's attorney...

I'm looking for some goog-phrases to find some cases, where
'reasonable expectation of adequate accounting' was a cause of
action.

Logically where the complainant is a captive client, ie. of some
guvmint-department, the abuse of non-decipherable accounts,
and only after there has been a demand for accounting will be
seen as unjust, and consequently many jurisdictions will have
passed laws against such ?

Can anybody please point me to statutes or cases ?

TIA,

== Chris Glur.

wikipedia on FRCP tells that:-
"Before the FRCP were established, common law pleading was more
formal, traditional, and particular in its phrases and requirements.
For example, a plaintiff bringing a trespass suit would have to
mention certain key words in his complaint or risk it being dismissed
with prejudice."

Someone said: "to restrict the 'practice' to the black-gown-mafia ?"

So if such an omission caused a dismissal, was a correction for
a later re-application barred by the principle of estoppel ?

I've noticed that in my 3rd world jurisdiction-location, that
some applications for relief for minority share holders have
been rejected on the Foss v Harbottle principle [and the idea
that companies are governed by their internal articles &
memorandum, so that Courts should not interfere], whereas the
facts [few shareholders & all family/related] would allow the
'effective quasi partnership' principle, which has been accepted
in UK company cases, and which UK company law my
jurisdiction-location follows.

Wow, how crappy: 9 line of one sentence - sorry !

In article 4ax.com>,
gSNIPMEmail.com> wrote:

Why?

It doesn't say that they found it libelous, either. Just that it
apparently violated their ToS. Maybe it was too big. Maybe someone
didn't pay a bill. Does their ToS state that the only violation is
"libelous postings"? If not, it might well have been removed for some
other reason.

The typical ToS says "... and anything else we don't want" (in
legalese).

On 2008-07-18 16:33:38 -0500, IANAL - Neither Are You -
ianal.nay@gSNIPMEmail.com said:

But are you a sock puppet?

Hello PeePee. Good to see that your stupid ass is cross-posting again. A
violation that you abhor, you fuckin hypocrite asshole. What a tool! Find
another nick, fuckwad!

On 7/18/08 4:33 PM, in article jlu184hdcqa4ghcl1pv8ppab9127aebabf@4ax.com,
"IANAL - Neither Are You - ianal.nay@gSNIPMEmail.com" You - ianal.nay@gSNIPMEmail.com> wrote: