31–40 of 232 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Default in court is just broken. Facts matter more then did someone show up. This is just broken.
If you can avoid adverse judgements by just not showing up for court, you incentivize people to not show up. That's not any more fair. There has to be something to lose for not showing up and default is what the legal system has chosen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, like most of the rest of the world. But the trial lawyers send tons of money to one of the parties, so our current legal system stays in place.
That's correct. The Republican party has been trying to pass a loser pays system since the early 1990s at least, when they included it in their so called "Contract with America." The fear mongering has been going on ever since: http://reason.com/archives/1995/06/01/civil-suits
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Default in court is just broken. Facts matter more then did someone show up. This is just broken.
If you can avoid adverse judgements by just not showing up for court, you incentivize people to not show up. That's not any more fair. There has to be something to lose for not showing up and default is what the legal system has chosen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's correct. The Republican party has been trying to pass a loser pays system since the early 1990s at least, when they included it in their so called "Contract with America." The fear mongering has been going on ever since: http://reason.com/archives/1995/06/01/civil-suits
I recall an 8 year stretch during that period when the Republican party held the presidency, and longer periods when they have controlled the house. It doesn't seem to be an especially high priority for them.
If I'm reading correctly, the key bit is: ----- Because Costello did not respond to all three requests for admissions within 30 days of receiving them, and did not ask for an extension of time, as required by Indiana trial rules, Costello admitted to the liabilities and damages by default. He also did not appear at a July 2013 hearing, according to court records. Costello said he never received the requests for admis…
On a unrelated note: every time I read an article on USA Today's website it magically disappears and then it takes me a minute to realize that the entire thing was in a modal and clicking in the blank space on the right or left makes the modal go away. What an atrocious user experience.
Under a sensible legal system, this is a crime. It's called "barratry": filing baseless lawsuits in order to harass or to extract a settlement. In most US jurisdictions, however, it's not legally recognized as a crime, and so it's widespread. From a defendant's point of view, however, it's basically equivalent to getting mugged.
Which "sensible legal system[s]" are these, and which ones punish plaintiffs for it rather than lawyers? Edit: I originally said "punish defendants ", but meant plaintiffs.
Edit: Found this article from Sep. 2014. [0]
"The [Indiana] state high court, in an order issued Tuesday, called Zavodnik 'a prolific, abusive litigant' and put him on notice. In the unanimous ruling, the five justices warned the Ukraine-born U.S. citizen that he 'can expect any further abusive litigation practices ... to be met with appropriate sanctions and restrictions.'"
0: http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2014/10/01/enoughs-enough...
Had this been me, at some point I'd have driven to the bar, and asked the biggest guys I could find if they'd take $500 to show up at the guy's house and scare the living crap out of him. Escalate accordingly. There aren't that many situations left in this country that call for intimidation / violence, but malicious litigation is one of them.
I dunno, man, as cathartic as that sounds, it reminds me of the old schoolyard bully tactic: pick on a kid until they punch you, then show the teacher your bloody nose.
Junior year I decided to teach him a lesson. We were making presentations for science class and you know how they have the steps of the scientific method? Well, for the hypothesis I spontaneously opted to, out of nowhere, rip him a new one in front of the whole class, tying the experiment to the fact that he was a giant fat-ass.
He jumped up and came for me, the class held him back, I got a tongue lashing from the teacher, and he never bugged me again. We even worked together on a shop project later on that year.
Some people are taught respect by their parents, others have to have it taught to them by strangers. I'm pretty good at that when I need to be.
Had this been me, at some point I'd have driven to the bar, and asked the biggest guys I could find if they'd take $500 to show up at the guy's house and scare the living crap out of him. Escalate accordingly. There aren't that many situations left in this country that call for intimidation / violence, but malicious litigation is one of them.
If you want laws against malicious litigation, campaign for them, but intimidating people because you believe the litigation to be malicious is childish at best.
1. The plaintiff exploited a loophole in the Indiana small claims rule regarding "res judicata," which normally acts to prevent a party from re-litigating a decided matter.
[The rule states](http://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/small_claims/), "A judgment shall be res judicata only as to the amount involved in the particular action and shall not be considered an adjudication of any fact at issue in any other action or court.
So the plaintiff lost a $6,000 claim in small claims, but somehow he was not barred from bringing claims in superior court on the same set of facts for a larger amount of money. I think the judge should have seen through this...
2. Requests for admission are the most abused discovery tools in modern litigation. There is no limit on the number of requests for admission. They are designed to streamline and focus areas of dispute, but hyperactive litigants are always trying to sneak case-killer facts into them to get "admitted" either by accident or failure to respond, the latter of which happened here.