Definition
A legal maxim is a principle that is established or proposition of law, and a types of truism and general maxim.

Forum Non Conviniens
A doctrine allowing a court with jurisdiction over a case to dismiss it because the convenience of the parties and the interest of justice would be better served if the case were brought in a court having proper jurisdiction in another venue.[i]

Overview:
Forum non conveniens is an optional power that permits courts for dismissing a case where another forum or court is greatly suited to hear the case. This dismissal of a case doesn't prevent the plaintiff party from re-filing their case in the more proper forum. This doctrine might be summoned by either the court, or by the defendant.

Regardless of whether a plaintiff brings case in any inconvinient forum, a court won't award forum non conveniens excusal (dismissal) if there is no other forum that could hear the case, or if other forum would not grant the plaintiff any cash even if the individual won. So also, courts won't award a forum non conveniens excusal where the judicial system of alternative forum is horribly deficient. For instance, an American court would not allow a forum non conveniens excusal where the forum which is alternative was Cuba.

Part Test:
At the point when a defendant moves a motion for a forum non conveniens transfer, courts ordinarily utilize a 2-part test. The initial part is a balancing test of both factors which are public and private factors, and the second glances at what sufficient alternative courts are accessible.

1. Balancing Test
   
   1. Private Factors
      
      1. simple access to evidence
      2. interest of the plaintiff and defendant in their connections with the particular forums
      3. the court chosen by the plaintiff would be oppressive to the defendant: If a court sees this factor as evident, at that point that is regularly adequate to dismiss the case and acknowledge a claim of forum non conveniens.
      4. Obtaining witnesses will be easier
      5. Judgement enforceability
          
   2. Public Factors
      
      1. regardless of whether the trial would include various sets of laws, accordingly confusing a jury potentially
      2. having juries who may associated (having connection) with the case
      3. having the trails in a spot where state laws administer
          
2. Adequate Alternative Inquiry Test
   
   1. The defendant must offer other court that can hear the case
   2. The substitute court must be able to give a solution for the plaintiff [ii]

The doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens is originated in the case of Willendson v. Forsoket[iii]. It is the case of united states. The case:
where a federal district court in Pennsylvania declined to exercise jurisdiction over a Danish sea captain who was being sued for back wages by a Danish seaman, stating that:
if any differences should hereafter arise, it must be settled by a Danish tribunal.

CASE LAWS:
Sinochem International Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corporation [iv]
This is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which the court has the discretion to respond at once to the respondent's forum non-convenience request to the United States District Court and not to take other entry objections in the first place. In particular, if a court, in any case, determines that it is a more appropriate arbiter of the qualifications of a foreign tribunal, it does not have to decide whether it has the power to determine the cause (subject-jurisdiction) or personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

In Loco Parentis
In Loco Parentis is latin word for In the place of Parent.
The legal doctrine under which an individual assumes parental rights, duties, and obligations without going through the formalities of legal Adoption.

In loco parentis is a legitimate precept depicting a relationship similar to that of a parent to a kid. It alludes to a person who assumes parental responsibilities and status regarding another individual, generally a youngster, without adopting that person formally. For instance, legal guardians are said to remain in loco parentis as for their wards, making a relationship that has implications which are special for insurance and Worker's Compensation law.

Application:
In Loco Parentis is originally derived from the English Common Law. In Loco Parentis is applied in 2 separate areas.

1. To begin with, it permits organizations, for example, universities and schools to act to the greatest advantage of the students as they see fit, in spite of the fact that not permitting what might be viewed as infringement of the civil liberties of the students.
   
   By a wide margin the most well-known utilization of in loco parentis identifies with students and teachers. For a long time, the English common law idea molded the responsibilities and rights of teachers of public shool: until the late nineteenth century, their lawful authority over students was as wide as that of parents. Changes in U.S. training, simultaneous with a more extensive reading by courts of the students rights, started bringing the idea into disrepute by the 1960s. Social changes, be that as it may, acquired a resurgence of the In Loco Prentis in the 21st century.
    
2.  Second, In Loco Parentis can give a non-biological parent to be given the lawful responsibilities and rights of a natural parent on the off chance that they have held themselves out as the parent.

A temporary parent, a custodial organization of country or a residential school which is expecting the parental commitments for the minor, including securing his/her privileges, might be alluded to as being in loco parentis. When minor kids are endowed by parents to a school, the parents deligate to the school certain obligations regarding their kids, and the school has certain liabilities.

As a result, the school and the instructors take a portion of the responsibility and a portion of the authority of the parents. The kid's physical security is endowed to the school and to the educator, who in this way become legitimately liable for the kid's wellbeing, to the extent that negligence can be demonstrated against them.

The Doctrine of In Loco Parentis is different from the doctrine of Parens Patriae, the psychological doctrine of parent and adoption.[v]

Origin:
In loco parentis had just precedent lawful meaning for wards of court. The establishing of Cheadle Hulme School, also called Manchester Warehousemen and Clerks Orphans Schools, turned into the first time through the articulation was utilized with lawful remaining in the educational field. In 1855, the Cheadle Hulme School, initially named The Manchester Warehousemen and Clerk's Orphan School, was built up to think about children who had lost their dads. Since fathers had sole duty regarding, and control of, their kids, these youngsters were viewed as orphans. The school embraced the adage in loco parentis to depict its commitment to thinking about and teaching the kids in their custody.[vi]

Case Laws:
Chartier vs. Chartier [vii]
In this case the court considered factors in determining in loco parentis relationship:

1. Child's age
2. The extent of degree in which child is financially/ physically dependent on the individual
3. The amount of financial supported provided by the individual to the child
4. The extent to which a person is concerned about being a parent usually performs duties.

Lander v. Seaver [viii]
It was held that in loco parentis permits schools to punish student's expression if the teacher or school believes contradicts the school's educational objectives and interests.[ix]
In any case, the court turned its perspective in case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette[x], in which the court decided that students can't be compelled to salute the flag of America.

In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District [xi], when the Supreme Court concluded that:
conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which in any way, shape or form � regardless of whether it originates from time, spot, or kind of conduct � tangibly upsets classwork or includes generous confusion or invasion of the rights of others is, obviously, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. Adult discourse is likewise constrained by time, spot and manner limitations and thusly such limits don't depend on schools acting in loco parentis.

In Morse v. Frederick[xii], Justice Clarence Thomas, agreeing with the larger part, contended that Tinker's decision contradicted the conventional comprehension of the judiciary's job in relation to public ruling, and overlooked the historical backdrop of public education. He accepted the role of judiciary to decide if students have freedom of speech was constrained by in loco parentis. This decision proclaimed that the only limitation the doctrine forced were acts that caused permanent injury or acts of legal malice. Neither of these were the situation with Tinker.

End-Notes:

1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/forum%20non%20conveniens
2. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/forum_non_conveniens
3. 29 Fed Cas 1283 (DC Pa 1801)
4. 549 U.S. 422 (2007)
5. https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/in+loco+parentis
6. http://lawtimesjournal.in/in-loco-parentis/
7. 1999 1 S.C.R. 242
8. 32 Vt. 114, 76 Am. Dec. 156 (1859)
9. https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3665&context=clevstlrev
10. 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
11. 393 U.S. 503 (1969)
12. 551 U.S. 393 (2007)