Русско-англо-русский юридический словарь

If the corporation is a legal person separate from its members, it follows that for a wrong done to it the corporation itself is the only proper plaintiff. (duhaime.org)

What exactly is the difference between a coat of arms and an emblem? For example, why is the seal of the USA a coat of arms, while the state emblem of Soviet union an emblem?

A coat of arms has a shield. This shield may be depicted alone or with additional elements, like the ones coats of arms usually have, i.e. helmets, mantling, and a crest. Or even more, like supporters, crowns, mottos, etc.

Now that's not everything. All this has to adhere to the rules of heraldry. E.g., a photograph on a shield is not a coat of arms. A coat of arms is a unique symbol (at least unique in one jurisdiction), representing one or several (related) persons, or any legal person (like a club, a company, or an administrative unit). Also, coats of arms are defined by their blazon, not by one specific image, so they can be drawn in different styles and are still the same coat of arms. This is true even for countries and other territorial units, who in practice often use just one specific version of their arms.

The seal of the USA contains a coat of arms in the centre: there is an eagle in a typical heraldic pose, with a shield on it. The shapes and colours on the shield adhere to heraldic rules.

The Soviet emblem on the other hand, does not have a shield or a crest. So it's not a coat of arms. I'd say, coats of arms are a subset of emblems, so we call it an emblem. The Soviets deliberately didn't want to use a coat of arms, which they saw as aristrocratic. But they still had an emblem, which they used where other states use their coats of arms. (reddit)

What exactly is the difference between a coat of arms and an emblem? For example, why is the seal of the USA a coat of arms, while the state emblem of Soviet union an emblem?

A coat of arms has a shield. This shield may be depicted alone or with additional elements, like the ones coats of arms usually have, i.e. helmets, mantling, and a crest. Or even more, like supporters, crowns, mottos, etc.

Now that's not everything. All this has to adhere to the rules of heraldry. E.g., a photograph on a shield is not a coat of arms. A coat of arms is a unique symbol (at least unique in one jurisdiction), representing one or several (related) persons, or any legal person (like a club, a company, or an administrative unit). Also, coats of arms are defined by their blazon, not by one specific image, so they can be drawn in different styles and are still the same coat of arms. This is true even for countries and other territorial units, who in practice often use just one specific version of their arms.

The seal of the USA contains a coat of arms in the centre: there is an eagle in a typical heraldic pose, with a shield on it. The shapes and colours on the shield adhere to heraldic rules.

The Soviet emblem on the other hand, does not have a shield or a crest. So it's not a coat of arms. I'd say, coats of arms are a subset of emblems, so we call it an emblem. The Soviets deliberately didn't want to use a coat of arms, which they saw as aristrocratic. But they still had an emblem, which they used where other states use their coats of arms. (reddit)

A legal person, a partnership or an association may file a claim to the Small Claims Court if it employed at most ten persons during the twelve months prior to the claim. (jurisolutions.ca)