Does any other country, besides the US, employ something substantially different from the ‘loser pays’ system? Although many of the jurisdictions that do employ the ‘loser pays’ system only do so up to certain limits, usually of modest amounts, nonetheless all the places I am familiar with have the expectation that some monetary compensation is due to the victor. Even for a jurisdiction such as Quebec, where such compensation is usually very modest, it’s quite rare for no money to be given. Are there countries, other than the US, that have differing expectations?
Fee Shifting In Various Jurisdictions Spain (at least as of 1984) has rules on fee shifting (or the lack thereof) very similar to the American rule. The other countries of the E.U. (as of 1984) had rules similar to those of Britain's loser pays rule, although there was significant variation in detail from country to country that made this less of an omnibus statement than it might seem. See Werner Pfenningstorf, &quot;The European Experience With Fee Shifting&quot;, 47(1) Law and Contemporary Problems 37 (1984). Most countries with civil law systems (i.e. those systems based upon the civil code tradition of Continental Europe rather than the common law tradition of England or something else entirely) outside of Europe in Africa and Asia are derived from the French Civil Code (most of West, Northwest and Central Africa, for example), or the German Civil Code (Korea and Japan, for example), and probably have followed in the footsteps on their parent legal traditions on this issue. This is also true of most formerly Communist Eastern European countries. Most countries in Spanish speaking Latin America, however, have legal systems derived from the Spanish legal tradition (and national constitutions modeled on that of the U.S.), so other countries besides the U.S. and Spain without automatic fee shifting to a prevailing party are probably located in Latin America. Some of these Latin American countries, however. probably adopted fee shifting rules of their own, and many of these countries declared independence from Spain before Spain adopted its civil code, so the extent to which those countries follow the Spanish model may not be as complete as in countries that gained independence later on. It is also worth noting that, however, in most civil law countries, the fees that an attorney can charge are usually significantly more highly regulated than in the United States, so the possibility of extremely high litigation fees is lower. Furthermore, civil litigation, in general, involves lower attorney fees on average in civil law countries (and in Islamic law and Chinese style Communist countries) than in the United States, in litigated cases, because the process is less attorney resource intensive due to civil procedure differences. So far as I know, fee shifting is also not used in Islamic law countries, where the basic assumption is that the parties are often pro se (i.e. without lawyers) and the institution of a professional legal class post-dates the establishment of the relevant legal rules. I do not know what the situation is in the People's Republic of China or similar legal systems. The American Rule It also bears noting that there are many exceptions to the &quot;American rule&quot; in U.S. law. While the American rule does not shift attorney fees, fees for out of pocket litigation expenses such as filing fees, copying charges, and expert witness fees are shifted as a matter of course to the prevailing party. Most professionally drafted written agreements have fee shifting provisions. Many specific statutes (e.g. civil rights actions and many labor law and consumer rights enforcement cases) also have fee shifting provisions (sometimes one sided, sometimes two sides). Fees can also be awarded in certain kinds of breach of fiduciary duty litigation contexts and in cases involving a dispute over a &quot;common fund&quot;. In divorce cases, litigation costs of both sides are often (really usually) allocated by the court in proportion to ability to pay, as &quot;winning&quot; and &quot;losing&quot; are ill defined. The biggest areas where fees shifting would be unusual in the U.S. would be in common law tort lawsuits, such as negligence cases (e.g. automobile accidents and slip and fall cases), strict liability products liability cases, defamation cases, intentional harm cases, and fraud actions. The American rule also applies in cases of oral contracts or contracts drafted by inexpert non-lawyers. Even in those cases various kinds of litigation misconduct can result in fee shifting. In U.S. tort cases, defendants usually have their attorney fees paid for by their insurance company, and plaintiffs often have an attorney paid on a contingent fee basis. Furthermore, awards by juries for non-economic damages and/or punitive damages often makes it possible for a prevailing plaintiff to receive full or nearly full economic loss compensation in such lawsuits, with the non-economic and/or punitive damages awards effectively providing resources to pay the attorney for the plaintiff on top of economic loss compensation for the plaintiff.
canada* What you describe is completely acceptable First, one of the goals of child support is to provide a similar standard of living in each household, so spending an amount on rent that happens to be a large portion of the child support amount is understandable. Second, the fact that the child only spends part of their time at Parent B's home is already accounted for in the computation of the amount owing. Child support in Canada is based almost exclusively on the income of the parents, taking into account the proportion of time the child spends with each parent. And this is all subject to any specific hardships of the paying parent. Only where a portion of child support is based on a special and extraordinary expenditure (e.g. a specific extracurricular activity, or medical insurance) is it expected the claimant make that specific expenditure. If they stop making that expenditure, then the child support add-on associated with that expenditure is removed. * I understand the question is directed to Arkansas, but I have provided an answer for those interested in Canadian law, in line with the guidance here (&quot;Even if you supply a jurisdiction tag, we expect and encourage answers dealing with other jurisdictions – while it might not answer your question directly, your question will be here for others who may be from those jurisdictions. If you do this, please tag your answer using the tag markdown: [tag: some-tag]&quot;).
Small claims court was created for such matters. There is the possibility of a fee waiver, and if you prevail, you could get some of your costs covered (though there are other hoops to jump through if you need enforcement). A formal letter (written by you) stating that you intend to seek a legal judgment against him/her in the amount owed might be sufficient motivation for the person to pay what is owed.
Other than the most exceptional cases, no... As a citizen (of any country), you are entitled to consular support but that does not extend to your country hiring a lawyer for you or representing you in court. It covers such things as facilitating communication with your family, attempting to ensure the trial is fair and repatriation at the end of your sentence - usually with you paying for your own transport. In exceptional cases, it is not outside the realm of possibilities that secretaries, ministers or their respective departments of foreign affairs get involved one may receive a representative. …but Citizenship is irrelevant to have the right to representation. In most liberal democracies, you are entitled to legal representation, in most autocratic dictatorships, you aren't, and there are a large number of steps in between. How this works depends on local law and custom but it usually works the same for citizens and non-citizens. In most jurisdictions you find, hire and pay for your own lawyer. Some jurisdictions may provide a lawyer for you without payment by you. How this works varies. For example, if you are accused of a crime in the united-states you are entitled to a lawyer that you pay for or, if you can't afford one, the state will provide one for you. In australia, this extends to civil and administrative matters as well subject to a means test, however, you are not entitled to free legal representation even if you are destitute - you are entitled to a fair trial which, depending on the circumstances, may mean the state pays for a lawyer. In china the state appoints a lawyer for you and you are not entitled to another - defendants rarely win in China. Each country may or may not make a distinction between citizens and non-citizens: the three above don't.
Unfortunately, you are probably not entitled to the redundancy / severance money since you weren't technically ever made redundant / laid off - there was no point in time where you were willing and able to work where they refused you, and I presume you were paid for all time worked. If you're concerned that they only changed their tune because they knew you had a better job already lined up - well, you can call their bluff or just use it as a learning experience. In what jurisdiction do you work? If the US, you could call their bluff, say you'd rather stay and see what they do. You would then keep the option of simply walking away with your stuff in a box any time you felt like it (assuming at-will employment and no contracts that state otherwise).
The amount requested has little or nothing to do with the amount, if any, eventually awarded. Once can sue "for 100 million dollars" and be awarded 100 dollars, and although it is rarer, one can be awarded more than the amount asked for when suit is field. That initial amount now serves as a peg to hang sensational news stores on, and nothing more. The plaintiff, and the plaintiff's lawyer, may consider that such publicity serves them well. Such inflated amounts are not grounds to dismiss the suit, so there is no downside to including them, except possibly negative publicity if people mock the demand.
Canada may have specific different laws, but in most countries any legal tender must be accepted for payment of a debt. There are subtleties; in the UK for example more than 20 one penny coins are not legal tender. Old coins or banknotes may cease to be legal tender at some point and can only be exchanged at a bank; it seems Canada's $10 bill is nowhere near that point. The biggest &quot;loophole&quot; is that a business owner doesn't have to allow you to create a debt. Say you go shopping in a supermarket for $40. You take your shopping, you now have a $40 debt. You take four $10 bills and hand them over, your debt is paid. At that point this $10 bill must be accepted. However, the shop owner could refuse to let you take the shopping if he doesn't like your bills. So you have no debt, so he doesn't have to accept legal tender as a debt. In a restaurant, where you typically eat your food, creating a debt, then he cannot refuse the $10 bill. And in a shop, this will not be good for his business. If my $10 bills are not accepted, then I will take advantage of my right to shop elsewhere.
While the point made by user6726 is not wrong with respect to this particular statute, it doesn't address a more basic point about how the supremacy clause works. Federal criminal laws govern punishments for federal crimes in the federal criminal justice system. Federal prosecutors bringing federal criminal charges against criminal defendants in the federal criminal justice system can and do secure death penalty sentences against criminal defendants in states where there is no state death penalty. One recent case where that happened was the Boston Marathon bombing case where a defendant was sentenced to death in federal court for the crime for violation of a federal criminal statute, despite the fact that Massachusetts has no death penalty of its own. This is not a supremacy clause issue. No state law had to be changed or invalidated because of the existence of the federal law. States law governs how the state criminal justice system works, not the federal criminal justice system. When we say that a state has abolished the death penalty, we mean that it has abolished it in the state criminal justice system. This doesn't absolutely foreclose the possibility that the death penalty will be imposed in that state on federal charges, although it does make it far less likely that the death penalty will be imposed. Partially, this is because "blue collar" crime is handled by the states. Partially, this is because out of comity and a concern that juries in states without a death penalty are less likely to vote for a capital sentence, federal prosecutors are less likely to seek the death penalty in a state without capital punishment than in a state with capital punishment. For example, there are 2,902 people on death row as of 2016, in the U.S. Almost 98% of death penalty convictions that have not yet been carried out were obtained in state courts. Only, 62 involve civilian death penalties imposed in federal courts (mostly in states that have the death penalty) and another 6 involve death penalties imposed in military courts (mostly in states that allow the death penalty or abroad). All of the other cases arose in state courts.