What does relinquishing control by express or implied consent mean?
455474
It means giving up control of the person - on purpose because you meant to and letting the other person say what will happen to the person.  You're out of it and you want to be and they want you to be.
215625
It sounds like we're doing your homework, but I'll offer something up anyway.  \n\nIt depends on the state.  In a lot of states unless the offer had a clause for revoking it then it can't be revoked unless there's a legal reason.  Legal reasons to revoke without a clause include 1)there was no consideration, ie you were selling land for no cost, in this case a court wouldn't consider that valid since there was no consideration (value) for giving up the land, 2) the offeror had no right to offer the property/rights, 3) the offeror was not legally able to enter into a contract (minor, not of sound mind, etc).  Again it's hard to say much without knowing the area you're in.
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).
1020627
Freedom is neither a right nor a privalege.  Freedom is an absolute.\n\nEvery living being has the freedom to do whatever it desires within the limits of its physical being.  One can do whatever they want,  The question is what are the consequences of acting freely?\n\nAs an extreme example one is free to murder if they choose to do so, however there are consequences of acting freely in this way.  There is no such thing as a restraint on our ability to think are act.  There are only consequences once those thoughts or action have occured.
896266
It's as obvious as it seems. \n\nA condition precedent is something that must be satisfied in order to trigger a requirement by another to perform.
225383
The higher purpose in permitting it is to affirm that every person should shall have full jurisdiction over what happens inside the boundaries of his/her body.  Therefore by permitting it we are acknowledging that the freedom of a person to control their own body is more important than other considerations.  However we are not endorsing the choices they make as "good".  We are merely choosing not to intervene forcefully in a person's excersise of thier soverign rights over their body.  In this light, persuasion and dialog become the tools of those who wish to stop the practice, not the threat of imprisonment or execution by the government (there are people out there who believe that it is murder and should be punished with death).  \n\nYour second question becomes irrelavent unless you believe that you or the government has a role in determining how a person should be permitted to exersise control over what goes on inside thier body.\n\nHuman sacrifice is ritualistic religious killing of a person in order to gain some favor with a God that they fear, in hopes that they will be granted some sort of boon from their god, such as good weather or reprieve from a plague.  I don't see how anyone would have an abortion to please God, but fervently religious people NEVER fail to surpirse me!
837211
For a confession to be admissible, the waiver of rights must by knowing and voluntary.  This means if you made it clear that you did not understand your rights, the officer should attempt to reread and explain them to you.  The officer should not ask you any questions until it is clear that you understand your rights.
730920
I'm not sure about Canadian Laws, however here in the United States, it is called "Recusal".   A judge will recuse themselves from any case in which they feel they cannot give a fair and impartial decision.  This is all voluntary on the part of the judge unless a writ is filed with a Superior Court Judge to have them withdrawn from the trial.
263360
They can't remove anything without written consent from the patient or their guardian.
208125
Someone tells you how to do something that you would reasonable be expected to know how to do.  Someone is overly polite, calling you "sir" or "m'am" when that would not ordinarily be done.  \n\nYou might also give some consideration to what constitutes being respected indirectly.
710304
An illegal act that is felt to have no direct or identifiable victim\n\nExample: For example, Margaret Sanger who founded the first birth control clinic in New York City was accused of distributing obscene material and violating public morals. Information about birth control is no longer considered obscene (see the U.S. case law examples).
188302
Peop;e are se;f wo;;ed \nthey do not want to recognize the sovreign rights of their creator.\nWe are willful  self willed and do not want to recognize his authority.\nWe do not want to give up even things that are harmful to our selves.
738993
1 To assuage an unpleasant feeling means to make the sufferer feel it less strongly. Example : He tried to calm the woman but could not ASSUAGE her terror. His grief at the premature death of his wife was ASSUAGEd by his strong religious beliefs.\n\n2 To assuage a need or desire means to satisfy it. Example : His thirst for knowledge could never be ASSUAGEd. Not even his promotion to chairman ASSUAGEd his desire for power.
161535
The phrase is adverse possession.  It is, in general simple terms, the principle that if someone exercises rights over a property for a long time, it becomes thiers.  \n\nThe law is different in different states, and complicated.  If you didn't know that the fence line was in the wrong place, it may well not be adverse possession.\n\nI know there are lots of clinics set up to help people with property issues in NYC.  Perhaps you can consult one of those if you don't want to consult a private lawyer.  (I knew someone who found help that way, and found the place through her congressman.)\n\nBut I recommend waiting until she has her survey done before you take irreversible action.
437265
In short, just because someone is asked to come to the police station and talk does not require the police to read them their Miranda rights. Even is someone is a suspect and they are not under arrest, they don't have to read a suspect his Miranda rights. \n\nThe basic rule is that they need to read you your rights only if you are under arrest or the equivalent restraints are present, AND they interrogate you. Equivalent restraints means a situation which would lead someone to believe that they are under arrest. (Sitting in the back of a patrol car with cuffs on).\n\nWhen someone is asked (key word) to come to the police station and they do so of their own free will, Miranda is not needed. \n\nCase law has found repeatedly that the officer's mind set (i.e. the officer intends to arrest the person but doesn't tell them) has no bearing on the need to read a suspect his/her Miranda rights. \n\nI don't know where the other posters got their information.
136411
means that the constitution has been changed.  For example the drinking of alcohol used to be illegal by the Prohibition Act.  But the Constititution was "amended" (21st Amendment) to make the consumption of alcohol legal again
906106
Possession is having some degree of control over something else. Generally, to possess something, a person must have an intention to possess it. A person may be in possession of some property (although possession does not always imply ownership). Like ownership, the possession of things is commonly regulated by states under property law. Languages have several means to indicate possession.\nControl (sometimes called factual possession) means physical control. Only tangible things, such as a book, dog, or parcel of land, can be controlled in this way. Intangible things, such as a copyright, cannot be controlled and thus cannot be possessed. The methods used to control something will be dictated by factors such as the size of the thing, its situation, and whether it is moveable. The essential question is whether the person is able to control access to the thing. With some things, such as animals or fluids, there is an additional problem of preventing the thing from escaping.\n\nMy favourite possession is my children and family.-