Basic Legal Concepts

==Business Doctrine/Sovereign Immunity doctrine==
You cannot sue someone simply because they made a poor business decision, administrative decision, or legislative decision as long as the action was within the scope of their authority and was not criminal. A poor decision is not negligence unless they had a duty and the reasonable opportunity to decide another way. Of course, if they had a clear duty to decide another way then it would not be within the scope of their authority.
==Negligence==
You cannot sue for negligence because a poor decision is made. That is not negligence in itself. You must prove that the person had 1) a duty to take an act, 2) that they reasonably could have taken the action, 3) damage was done to the suing party, and 4) that the failure to take action was the major contributing cause to the injury.
==Respondeat Superior==
You may sue the employer (principal) for the actions of their employee (agent) as long as the actions were taken within the scope of the agent's employment. Criminal actions are generally not within the scope of employment unless specifically ordered by the employer.
 
In the case of a corporation or government agency the employer (principal) is the corporation or agency and not the head of the agency/corporation. 
An Agent can be sued for his conduct in the scope of his employment but the agent may then sue the principal (employer) for indemnification. The employer will then reimburse the agent for the damages he or she was forced to pay in the first lawsuit.
==Election of Remedies==
If you sue the Republic Guard for negligence you cannot later sue the command council for the same negligence. You can only collect damages ONCE. You can, however, sue multiply parties in the same case and the court may hold them Jointly and Severably Liable or assign damages between them.
 
==Statutory Interpretation==
Legislative Intent is a tool for the courts to analyze statutory construction. This is something you won’t have to worry about here since we don’t record most legislative changes to laws BUT the court can and probably will look to amendments and similar bills that are passed or rejected. 
 
Example: Constant bills to remove the amnesty law keep the issue alive in the senate BUT there is a tradeoff. They show the court that there is clear legislative intent concerning a broad interpretation of the amnesty. Exception after exception is getting shot down so the court will be much less likely to interpret an exception into the law. A failed bill to weaken something may actually strengthen its position as a matter of law.
 
===Changes===
 
A change in the law is always a clear indication of legislative intent for the purposes of statutory interpretation.
A procedural change may be applied retroactively. Example: A new district court is added by the senate and it is required that persons move through this court before they may reach the supreme court. This adds a new set of procedures so, even if the crime/event happens prior to the new bill passing, the law must be obeyed if the claimants file after it has passed.
A substantive change may not be applied retroactively. Example: The Senate passes a law forbidding the adopting, purchase, or sale of cats. Before the law is passed, Meena Tills adopts eighteen of the furry devils. (We can only speculate as to why a fish would want to adopt cats) Meena Tills cannot be prosecuted for adopting cats before the law is passed.
==Other==
Some things you cannot sue for in the DH Universe
1. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
2. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Some things that carry very little weight in the DH universe:
1. Landowner duties to people on their property.
Category:Republic Law