definition of statutory immunity?
111329
The term statutory immunity refers to the devices in section 139 which aim to ensure that confidential information generated by approved quality assurance bodies cannot be disclosed to persons outside Quality Assurance Committees and is not admissible in court proceedings. \nSub-section 139(1) of the act provides the Minister for Health with the Power to declare a specified committee, council or other body ('committee') as 'an approved quality assurance body' for statutory immunity purposes.\n\nIn accordance with sub-section 139(2) of the Act, the Minister must not approve a committee unless he or she is satisfied that:\n\nit is established under the by-laws or constitution of the agency; \nits functions include the assessment and evaluation of the quality of health services provided by the agency, including the review of clinical practices or clinical competence of persons providing those services; \nthe carrying out of its functions and powers would be facilitated by the provision of certain immunities in respect of proceedings; and \nit is in the public interest that persons be prohibited from disclosing information given to it in the course of the carrying out of its functions.
1046892
No court has ruled that the US does not have sovereign immunity.  The US may, by statute, waive sovereign immunity in certain types of cases, but courts will not find a waiver unless it is clear that the statute waived immunity.\n\nLikewise, a US State has sovereign immunity and again waiver will not be implied, but must be explicit.\n\nHave you tried naming the Secretary of HUD and the corresponding Hawaiian official?   If you name the individuals, the court may be able to grant you injunctive relief as to future events and actions, but will not be able to grant you damages for past actions.
683741
Michigan Statutes Annotated.\nThis is another commercially-published (by Lexis Law Publishing) version of the Michigan statutes, containing the same statutory law organized by subject matter.
357811
Not sure what you are referring to. HIPPA? Duty to act? There are lots of areas that have legal ramifications in nursing care.
969178
In the UK, the burden of proof in civil (or tort) cases is "on the balance of probabilities" and in criminal cases "beyond a reasonable doubt". \n\nOf the three examples you gave:\n\n1. Negligence is generally a tortuous claim and therefore is determined on the balance of probabilities. (ie. 51% over 49%)\n\n2. Acting with undue care or attention is an aspect of negligence.  Although with negligence, you must first prove there was a duty of care owed and then secondly prove that on the balance, that duty was breached. (For a far better explanation of the above, see: Lord Atkins dictum in Donoghue v. Stevenson, Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, and most recently, Caparo Industries v. Dickman)\n\n3. The defence of Automatism is used in criminal cases and has a variety of barriers depending on whether you are claiming insane automatism which is caused by a "disease of the mind" (R v. Quick) or non-insane automatism with is due to external factors (R v. Hennessy).
972186
(m)\n\nA Statutory Corporation is a corporation created by statute. Statutory corporations are often government owned or part owned businesses and may return dividends to Government
18315
First, stop the CAPSLOCK.  Second, as usual with legal-related questions on Yahoo! Answers, far too little information exists to answer the question adequately. Vernon's Annotated MISSOURI Statutes?  Vernon's TEXAS Civil Statutes?  Let's assume it's Texas.  Article 1A is an invalid reference; articles usually refer to portions of constitutions or to legislative documents, nto statutes.  Come back with a question that's more detailed, more specific, and with careful grammar so that I can answer it adequately.
35299
This website could ans your question: <http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/certiorari.htm>
1044897
In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation imposed on an individual requiring that they exercise a reasonable standard of care while performing any acts that could forseeably harm others. For an action in negligence, there must be an identified duty of care in law...
467802
He or she can probably get into more trouble by withholding evidence.  The words that come to mind are: accessory after the fact.  I believe that could apply here.
324734
In most states, the statutory limits on consent provide for exceptions when the "victim" is the spouse of the alleged offender.
443121
Diplomats are given immunity according to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961). This means that diplomats cannot be arrested, tried, or made a party to a lawsuit. However, the home country can waive the immunity in the case of severe crimes such as murder, and if the diplomat is actually acting as a spy, the immunity does not stand.
105462
You are not guilty as long as you can demonstrate that you have used the minimum necessary force to stop a criminal from causing serious bodily harm or death to another.  The affirmative defense is called "defense of others" and it can, under the conditions I have presented here, be a complete or partial defense to assault, battery, attempted murder, manslaughter, murder and other related such crimes.
933725
It is a threat, of an immediate or imminent harm, and made with the present intention either to carry out the threat or with the present intention of inducing fear that the threat will be carried out.\n\nThat's the definition used by the Supreme Court. See Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003), citing Watts v. U.S., 394 U.S. 705 (1969).
1063982
tortious liability revolves around duties fixed by law. distinguish this from contractual liability where duties are fixed (barginnd) by the parties.\n\nthe courts are clear there is no bar from claiming remedies for breach of a duty and for breach of contract.\nsee Hedley Burne v Heler\n\nstrict liability is liability without fault (was the damage reasonably forseeable) remember strict liability is not absolute liablility and is worth researching some of the law on this area.\nRylands v Fletcher.\nWringe v Cohen
809989
try breaking down your question to find more people who can answer it im working on an essay on almost the same topic.\ntry  this website too its has some infor you can use\n\nhttp://www.kevinboone.com/lawglos_StatutoryInterpretation.html\nhttp://www.lawteacher.net/english.htm\n\nalso try typing statutory interpretation on the search for questions space there is loads of infor coming up\n\nGOODLUCK
803526
I'm in the UK but the basic principles are much the same. \n\nDouble Jeopardy means that you cannot be tried for exactly the same crime twice - particularly murder. For crimes such as this, a person must be found guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" (this is known as the "burden of proof").\n\nFor wrongful death, the burden of proof is lower because a wrongful death suit is a civil action (rather than a criminal prosecution). For civil actions the burden of proof merely requires that they be found guilty "on the balance of probabilities" - in other words an element of reasonable doubt is permitted.\n\nWrongful death actions often occur after a criminal murder trial has failed through lack of sufficient evidence to prove guilt even though there is a strong suspicion that the accused person is responsible for the death.\n\nIncidentally, here in the UK there has recently been the first conviction under Double Jeopardy. The law was recently changed allowing a person to be tried a second time after having been found not guilty at their first trial. A second trial is now permitted if significant new evidence is brought forward which brings into question the verdict at the first trial. This is basically in response to advances in DNA and forensic science.