States with local income taxes in addition to state-level income tax.

The following states have local income taxes. These are generally imposed at a flat rate and tend to apply to a limited set of income items.

Alabama:

Some counties, including Macon County, and municipalities, including Birmingham (employees on payroll only).

California:

San Francisco (payroll only).

Colorado:

Some municipalities, including Denver and Aurora (flat-fee Occupational Privilege tax for privilege of working or conducting business; filed with municipality imposing fee).

Delaware:

Wilmington (earned, certain Schedule E income, as well as capital gains from sale of property used in business; income must be reported to the City of Wilmington if Wilmington tax is not withheld by employer.)

Indiana (all local taxes reported on state income tax form):

All counties.

Iowa (all local taxes reported on state income tax form):

Many school districts and Appanoose County.

Kansas:

Some counties and municipalities (interest and dividend income; reported on separate state form 200 filed with the county clerk).

Kentucky:

Most counties, including Kenton County, Kentucky, and municipalities, including Louisville and Lexington (earned income and certain rental income that qualifies as a business; reported as Occupational License fee/tax by employer or as Net Profits tax by business, filed with county or municipality imposing tax).

Maryland: (all local taxes reported on state income tax form):

 All counties, and the independent city of Baltimore.

Michigan:

Many cities, including Detroit, Lansing, and Flint (most income above a certain annual threshold; reported on form issued by imposing city or on separate state form 5118/5119/5120 in the case of Detroit).

Missouri: (all other cities are prohibited from imposing local income tax):

Kansas City, (earned income; income must be reported to Kansas City if Kansas City tax is not withheld by employer; residents must file the Earnings tax form to report wages on which Kansas City income tax is not withheld and the Business Earnings tax form to report self-employment income).

St. Louis, (earned income; income must be reported to the City of St. Louis if St. Louis tax is not withheld by employer; residents must file the Earnings tax form to report wages on which St. Louis income tax is not withheld and the Business Earnings tax form to report self-employment income).

New Jersey:

Newark (payroll only).

New York (all local taxes reported on state income tax form):

New York City, (employees with NYC section 1127 withholding should also file New York City Form 1127).

Yonkers,

Metropolitan Commuter Transportation District (self-employed with income sourced from New York City, as well as the counties of Dutchess, Nassau, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Suffolk, and Westchester).

Property rights have developed over ancient and modern history, from Abrahamic law to today's Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 17. Property rights can be understood as constructs in economics for determining how a resource or economic good is used and owned. Resources can be owned by (and hence be the property of) individuals, associations, collectives, or governments. Property rights can be viewed as an attribute of an economic good. This attribute has three broad components and is often referred to as a bundle of rights in the United States:

1. the right to use the good.

2. the right to earn income from the good, and,

3. the right to transfer the good to others, alter it, abandon it, or destroy it (the right to ownership cessation).

Conceptualizing Property in Economics Vs Law.

The fields of economics and law do not have a general consensus on conceptions of property rights. Various property types are used in law but the terminology can be seen in economic reports. Sometimes in economics, property types are simply described as private or public or common in reference to private goods (excludable and rivalrous goods, like a phone) and public goods (non-excludable and non-rivalrous goods, like air) respectively. Below is a list of the several property types defined and their relation to the economic concepts of excludability (the ability to limit the consumption of the good) and rivalry (a person's consumption of the good reduces the ability of another to consume it).

Arson is the crime of willfully and deliberately setting fire to or charring property. Though the act typically involves buildings, the term can also refer to the intentional burning of other things, such as motor vehicles, watercraft, or forests. The crime is typically classified as a felony, with instances involving a greater degree of risk to human life or property carrying a stricter penalty. Arson which results in death can be further prosecuted as manslaughter or murder. A common motive for arson is to commit insurance fraud. In such cases, a person destroys their own property by burning it and then lies about the cause in order to collect against their insurance policy.

A person who commits arson is referred to as an arsonist, or a serial arsonist if committed several times. Arsonists normally use an accelerant (such as gasoline or kerosene) to ignite, propel and directionalize fires, and the detection and identification of ignitable liquid residues (ILR’s) is an important part of fire investigations. Pyromania is an impulse control disorder characterized by the pathological setting of fires. Most acts of arson are not committed by pyromaniacs.

Blackmail is an act of coercion using the threat of revealing or publicizing either substantially true or false information about a person or people unless certain demands are met. It is often damaging information, and it may be revealed to family members or associates rather than to the general public. These acts can also involve using threats of physical, mental or emotional harm, or of criminal prosecution, against the victim or someone close to the victim. It is normally carried out for personal gain, most commonly of position, money, or property. It is also used, sometimes by state agencies, to exert influence; this was a common Soviet practice, so much so that the term "kompromat", transliterated from Russian, is often used for compromising material used to exert control.

Blackmail may also be considered a form of extortion. Although the two are generally synonymous, extortion is the taking of personal property by threat of future harm. Blackmail is the use of threat to prevent another from engaging in a lawful occupation and writing libelous letters or letters that provoke a breach of the peace, as well as use of intimidation for purposes of collecting an unpaid debt.

In many jurisdictions, blackmail is a statutory offense, often criminal, carrying punitive sanctions for convicted perpetrators. Blackmail is the name of a statutory offense in the United States, England and Wales, and Australia, and has been used as a convenient way of referring to certain other offenses, but was not a term used in English law until 1968.

Blackmail was originally a term from the Scottish Borders meaning payments rendered in exchange for protection from thieves and marauders. The "mail" part of blackmail derives from Middle English male meaning "rent or tribute". This tribute (male or reditus) was paid in goods or labor; hence "blackmail". Alternatively, it may be derived from two Scottish Gaelic words blathaich - to protect; and mal - tribute or payment.

Civil procedure in the United States consists of rules that govern civil actions in the federal, state, and territorial court systems, and is distinct from the rules that govern criminal actions. Like much of American law, civil procedure is not reserved to the federal government in its Constitution. As a result, each state is free to operate its own system of civil procedure independent of her sister states and the federal court system.

History.

Early federal and state civil procedure in the United States was rather ad hoc and was based on traditional common law procedure but with much local variety. There were varying rules that governed different types of civil cases such as "actions" at law or "suits" in equity or in admiralty; these differences grew from the history of "law" and "equity" as separate court systems in English law. Even worse, discovery was generally unavailable in actions at law. In order to obtain discovery, a party to a legal action had to bring a collateral proceeding, a bill in equity in aid of discovery, just to obtain essential documents or testimony from the opposing party.

Procedure in the early federal courts was rather incoherent. The Process Act of 1792 authorized the federal courts to write their own procedural rules for everything but actions at law. In the context of actions at law, the earlier Process Act of 1789 was so poorly written that it forced a federal court sitting in a state to apply the common law rules of pleading and procedure that were in effect in the state at the time it joined the Union, regardless of whether the state had modified or revised its civil procedure system since. In other words, even though a state's common law pleading system was always constantly evolving through case law, the federal courts in that state were literally frozen in time (a concept now known as "static conformity"). The Process Acts of 1789 and 1792 did not expressly address the problem of what procedural laws to apply in the federal courts in new states that joined the Union after the original Thirteen Colonies. In 1828, Congress enacted a law which stated that such courts would follow the civil procedure in effect at the time those states joined the Union.

Tort law.

In tort law, strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault (such as negligence or tortious intent). The claimant need only prove that the tort occurred, and that the defendant was responsible. The law imputes strict liability to situations it considers to be inherently dangerous. It discourages reckless behavior and needless loss by forcing potential defendants to take every possible precaution. It has the beneficial effect of simplifying and thereby expediting court decisions in these cases, although the application of strict liability may seem unfair or harsh, as in Re Polemis.

Under the English law of negligence and nuisance, even where tortious liability is strict, the defendant may sometimes be liable only for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his act or omission.

An early example of strict liability is the rule Rylands v Fletcher, where it was held that "any person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape". If the owner of a zoo keeps lions and tigers, he is liable if the big cats escape and cause damage or injury.

In strict liability situations, although the plaintiff does not have to prove fault, the defendant can raise a defense of absence of fault, especially in cases of product liability, where the defense may argue that the defect was the result of the plaintiff's actions and not of the product, that is, no inference of defect should be drawn solely because an accident occurs. If the plaintiff can prove that the defendant knew about the defect before the damages occurred, additional punitive damages can be awarded to the victim in some jurisdictions.

The doctrine's most famous advocates were Learned Hand, Benjamin Cardozo, and Roger J Traynor.

Strict liability is sometimes distinguished from absolute liability. In this context, an actus reus may be excused from strict liability if due diligence is proved. Absolute liability, however, requires only an actus reus.

Absolute liability is a standard of legal liability found in tort and criminal law of various legal jurisdictions.

To be convicted of an ordinary crime, in certain jurisdictions, a person must not only have committed a criminal action but also have had a deliberate intention or guilty mind (mens rea). In a crime of strict or absolute liability, a person could be guilty even if there was no intention to commit a crime. The difference between strict and absolute liability is whether the defense of a “mistake of fact” is available: in a crime of absolute liability, a mistake of fact is not a defense. Strict or absolute liability can also arise from inherently dangerous activities or defective products that are likely to result in a harm to another, regardless of protection taken, such as owning a pet rattlesnake; negligence is not required to be proven.

In addition to federal income tax collected by the United States, most individual U.S. states collect a state income tax. Some local governments also impose an income tax, often based on state income tax calculations. Forty-two states and many localities in the United States impose an income tax on individuals. Eight states impose no state income tax, and a ninth, New Hampshire, imposes an individual income tax on dividends and interest income but not other forms of income. Forty-seven states and many localities impose a tax on the income of corporations.

State income tax is imposed at a fixed or graduated rate on taxable income of individuals, corporations, and certain estates and trusts. These tax rates vary by state and by entity type. Taxable income conforms closely to federal taxable income in most states with limited modifications. States are prohibited from taxing income from federal bonds or other federal obligations. Most states do not tax Social Security benefits or interest income from obligations of that state. In computing the deduction for depreciation, several states require different useful lives and methods be used by businesses. Many states allow a standard deduction or some form of itemized deductions. States allow a variety of tax credits in computing tax.

Each state administers its own tax system. Many states also administer the tax return and collection process for localities within the state that impose income tax.

State income tax is allowed as an itemized deduction in computing federal income tax, subject to limitations for individuals.

A partition is a term used in the law of real property to describe an act, by a court order or otherwise, to divide up a concurrent estate into separate portions representing the proportionate interests of the owners of property. It is sometimes described as a forced sale. Under the common law, any owner of property who owns an undivided concurrent interest in land can seek such a division. In some cases, the parties agree to a specific division of the land; if they are unable to do so, the court will determine an appropriate division. A sole owner, or several owners, of a piece of land may partition their land by entering a deed poll (sometimes referred to as "carving out").

Why forced sales occur.

Forced sales generally occur because owners of property are unable to agree upon certain aspects of the ownership. The owners may disagree on how to use the property, the amount of money to invest into the property, on their right to occupy and use the whole of the property. If the parties cannot come to an agreement, the case moves to court through a petition to partition action.

Property may be owned by more than one person either as joint tenants, tenants in common, and in some states tenants by the entirety. The choice of which tenancy to enter into is made by the parties at the time of purchase. With each type of tenancy, each owner has the right to occupy the whole. That means that owners are not allowed to designate certain rooms as their own, but each element of the property is enjoyed fully by all parties.

Types of partition.

There are three kinds of partitions which can be awarded by court: partition in kind, partition by allotment, and partition by sale.

1. A partition in kind is a division of the property itself among the co-owners.

2. In a partition by allotment, which is not available in all jurisdictions, the court awards full ownership of the land to a single owner or subset of owners and orders them to pay the person or persons divested of ownership for the interest awarded.

3. Partition by sale constitutes a forced sale of the land, followed by division of the profits thus realized among the tenants. Generally, the court is supposed to order a partition sale only if the land cannot be physically divided, although this determination often rests on whether the economic value of the divided pieces is less in the aggregate than the value of the parcel as a single piece. See Delfino v Vealencis (1980).

A provision in a deed completely prohibiting partition will not be given effect, but courts will enforce a provision that temporarily restricts partition, as long as the restriction is reasonable.

Indecent exposure is the deliberate public exposure by a person of a portion of their body in a manner contrary to local standards of appropriate behavior. Laws and social attitudes regarding indecent exposure vary significantly in different countries. It ranges from outright prohibition of the exposure of any body parts other than the hands or face to prohibition of exposure of certain body parts, such as the genital area, buttocks or breasts.

Decency is generally judged by the standards of the local community, which are seldom codified in specifics in law. Such standards may be based on religion, morality or tradition, or justified on the basis of "necessary to public order". Non-sexual exhibitionism or public nudity is sometimes considered indecent exposure. If sexual acts are performed, with or without an element of nudity, this can be considered gross indecency in some jurisdictions, which is usually a more serious criminal offence (historically, gross indecency statutes often did not specifically define the crime itself, leaving this up to the determination of courts; in practice, gross indecency was used primarily to criminalize sexual activity between men that fell short of sodomy laws, though present-day statutes vary). In some countries, exposure of the body in breach of community standards of modesty is also considered to be public indecency.

The legal and community standards of what states of undress constitute indecent exposure vary considerably and depend on the context in which the exposure takes place. These standards have also varied over time, making the definition of indecent exposure a complex topic.

History.

What is an inappropriate state of dress in a particular context depends on the standards of decency of the community where an exposure takes place. These standards vary from time to time and can vary from the very strict standards of modesty in places such as Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, which require most of the body to be covered, to tribal societies such as the Pirahã or Mursi where full nakedness is the norm. There is generally no implication that the state of dress objected to is of a sexual nature; and if such an allegation were to be made, the act would generally be described as "gross indecency".

The Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) is an intergovernmental organization in the area of private international law (also known as conflict of laws), that administers several international conventions, protocols and soft law instruments.

The Hague Conference was first convened by Tobias Asser in 1893 in The Hague. In 1911, Asser received the Nobel Prize for Peace for his work in the field of private international law, and in particular for his achievements with respect to the HCCH. After World War II, the Hague Conference was established as an international organization.

History.

A permanent diplomatic conference.

On the initiative of Tobias Asser, the First Diplomatic Session of the HCCH was convened in 1893. Its aim was, and remains, to "work for the progressive unification of the rules of private international law", including by creating, and assisting in the implementation of, multilateral conventions that promote the harmonization of the rules and principles of private international law (or conflict of laws).

The First to Fourth Diplomatic Session of the HCCH took place in 1893, 1894, 1900 and 1904 respectively. They resulted in a number of multilateral treaties, the Hague Conventions, that unified the rules of private international law in the areas of Marriage (1902), Divorce (1902), Guardianship (1902), Civil procedure (1905), Effects of Marriage (1905), and Deprivation of Civil Rights (1905).

After World War I, the Fifth and Sixth Diplomatic Sessions took place in 1925 and 1928 respectively. The result of those Diplomatic Sessions was the Protocol to recognize the competence of the Permanent Court of International Justice to interpret the Hague Conventions on Private International Law.

Intergovernmental organization.

After World War II, steps were taken to establish the HCCH as an intergovernmental organization, governed by its member states and administered by a secretariat, the Permanent Bureau. The treaty establishing the HCCH, the "Statute of the Hague Conference on Private International Law", was adopted during the Seventh Diplomatic Session of the HCCH in 1951, and entered into force on 15 July 1955.

The acronym "HCCH" is derived from using the respective capitals of the phrases "Hague Conference" and "Conférence de La Haye". It represents the bilingual nature of the HCCH, which has both English and French as its working languages.

The attractive nuisance doctrine applies to the law of torts in some jurisdictions. It states that a landowner may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by an object on the land that is likely to attract children. The doctrine is designed to protect children who are unable to appreciate the risk posed by the object, by imposing a liability on the landowner. The doctrine has been applied to hold landowners liable for injuries caused by abandoned cars, piles of lumber or sand, trampolines, and swimming pools. However, it can be applied to virtually anything on the property.

There is no set cutoff point that defines youth. The courts will evaluate each "child" on a case-by-case basis to see if the "child" qualifies as a youth. If it is determined that the child was able to understand and appreciate the hazard, the doctrine of attractive nuisance will not likely apply.

Under the old common law, the plaintiff (either the child, or a parent suing on the child's behalf) had to show that it was the hazardous condition itself which lured the child onto the landowner's property. However, most jurisdictions have statutorily altered this condition, and now require only that the injury was foreseeable by the landowner.

Comparative responsibility (known as comparative fault in some jurisdictions) is a doctrine of tort law that compares the fault of each party in a lawsuit for a single injury. Comparative responsibility may apply to intentional torts as well as negligence and encompasses the doctrine of comparative negligence.

Comparative responsibility divides the fault among parties by percentages, and then accordingly divides the money awarded to the plaintiff. The plaintiff may only recover the percentage of the damages he is not at fault for. If a plaintiff is found to be 25% at fault, he can recover only 75% of his damages.

There are several circumstances that make comparative responsibility intricate: when the plaintiff shares in fault for the damages, when a defendant who has a share of the fault cannot be included in the suit, when one of the defendants can not pay, and when there are charges of both negligence and intentional torts in the same action.

In some common law jurisdictions, contributory negligence is a defense to a tort claim based on negligence. If it is available, the defense completely bars plaintiffs from any recovery if they contribute to their own injury through their own negligence.

Because the contributory negligence doctrine can lead to harsh results, many common law jurisdictions have abolished it in favor of a "comparative fault" or "comparative negligence" approach. A comparative negligence approach reduces the plaintiff's damages award by the percentage of fault that the fact-finder assigns to the plaintiff for his or her own injury. For example, if a jury thinks that the plaintiff is 30% at fault for his own injury, the plaintiff's damages award will be reduced by 30%.