Doctrine of impossibility under russian legal system?
969558
check wikipedia.com\n\n:> peace
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).
764718
Law of unintended consequences?
633431
Belief system 'truth is not attainable'\n\nword 'devastating'
938142
Make war an impossibility.
456831
i think thats imposible
1144732
Impossibility !\n\nThis could be due to some Act of God or due to some circumstantial reasons. \n\nbut if any judge give these kind of order the it would be impossible for him to continue as a judge.\n\n-k-
555644
Russia is a democratic federative state based on rule of law and a republican form of government. State power in Russia is exercised by the President, the Federal Assembly, the Government and the courts. \nOne of the basic principles of constitutional government is the division of powers. In accordance with this principle, power must not be concentrated in the hands of one person or one institution, but must be divided among the legislative, executive and judicial branches of power. The division of powers requires that there be a clear delineation of responsibilities and a system of checks and balances so that each branch of power can offset the others. \n\nThe President is at the summit of the system of state power. He ensures that all the state institutions are able to carry out their responsibilities and keeps watch over them to ensure that no institution can encroach on another’s prerogatives, attempt to usurp power in the country or take over another’s powers.\n\nEach institution of state power is only partially responsible for enforcing the Constitution. Only the President has the responsibility of safeguarding the state system, the state’s sovereignty and integrity overall. This is the guarantee that the other state institutions and officials can exercise their powers in a normal constitutional fashion.\n\nThe President’s place in the state power system is tied to his constitutional prerogatives regarding, above all, the executive branch of power. Legally, the President is distanced from all the branches of power, but he nonetheless remains closer to the executive branch. This closeness is reflected in the specific constitutional powers the President exercises as head of state. \n \n\n\nCont. on web page this is the government site of russia it should give all the info you need to answer this question that i do not have here.
1074846
Cant be done....the justice system will always be tilted toward those who can afford better representation and can afford expert witness's. the government provides legal counsel for those who cannot afford it but the competence of such is usually woefully lacking...Justice is tilted toward the wealthy as is everything else in a capitalist society...he who has the gold makes the rules...I have considered this many times and there are no clear cut answers to making the system better...I suppose there could be limits set to what the government was going to spend to prosecute a case thereby granting limits to what the accused could spend but I'm not sure this is just if a man is defending his life shouldn't he be allowed to defend himself with all that he has?..then perhaps a limit to what the government can spend....ehhh...not an easy problem to solve.
357548
Man of the aparatus.  A term about Russian politics under the Soviet System.  This person did what was necessary to climb the ladder and stay in good graces.  They accepted the system and lived in the system.  Then they got screwed when the system fell and they couldn't get work anywhere, oh well.
611066
Thank goodness for the Rehnquist court. Without their decisions in the Lopez and Morrison cases, we'd be living in a nightmare police state to rival the Soviet Union in their KGB days. Further proof that liberalism is communism at it's finest.
166620
You will have to look it up. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/obtainopinions.pdf
302280
When you ask that question, I think of the US court system. It's complex and independent, but necessary.
606894
Russia is a one party dominant state with United Russia in power. Opposition parties are allowed, but are widely considered to have no real chance of gaining power.\n\nLiberal:\n\nUnion of Right Forces (Союз Правых Сил, Soyuz Pravykh Sil) \nYabloko (Российская Демократическая Партия "Яблоко", Rossiyskaya Demokraticheskaya Partiya "Yabloko")\n\nGoverning Coalition:\nUnited Russia ("Единая Россия", Yedinaya Rossiya) - currently has more than 2/3 in State Duma \nUnity (Yedineniye) \nOur Home is Russia
9851
Russia might have same ambitions as the erstwhile USSR, but it is certainly not the same power as USSR, economically, technically and most importantly politically. \n\nAnd I think this is a fact that no one can deny now. Also, the problems with other breakaway nations of USSR has made it weaker.
88413
Absolute liability?  Resevoir breaking?\n\nYour turn.  Palsgraff v. Long Island RR.
696418
The doctrine of sovereign immunity makes it impossible to sue a state or the Feds, except in such ways as they by law provide. \n\nEach state is different. You'd have to speak to an attorney.