181–190 of 289 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since it collects personally identifiable information (at least IP addresses, but it's not clear where it stops) this requires special treatment under GDPR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Analytics#Privacy
Why does an unmonetized website about US court cases, presumably targeted towards Americans, need to care about GDPR?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Legal research services (access to dockets, case text, etc.) tend to be extremely expensive. I think making that more widely available is a good thing for people with limited resources. It's kind of nuts how impenetrable the legal system is if you don't have any resources.
Great point. It's extremely difficult to represent yourself pro se if you don't have access to information about how cases like yours might unfold, arguments that have been used, how well those arguments have worked, how the cases have been decided, whether a company has settled a similar case as yours, and so on.
It's just too important to risk no?
Like DIY surgery. It's quite expensive and impenetrable to be doing your own appendectomy and I'm not mad about that. In both cases you could if you really had to but a high barrier to entry for me is not a bug but a feature.
"Afterwards plaintiff sued defendant claiming damages".
In Australia and the UK, this would be
"Afterwards the plaintiff sued the defendant claiming damages".
In general US opinions seem more concise and formulaic than their Anglo counterparts. This is just one striking example. I'm just curious about the origin of this distinction. Perhaps there is some text on concise legal writing prescribed at US law schools which offers such a suggestion?
Another curious difference, it's an opinion in the US, a decision or judgment in Australia/UK.
How is this different from other free legal DBs like Justia and Casetext?
Does anyone know why American court opinions tend to omit the word "the" before plaintiff and defendant? For instance "Afterwards plaintiff sued defendant claiming damages". In Australia and the UK, this would be "Afterwards the plaintiff sued the defendant claiming damages". In general US opinions seem more concise and formulaic than their Anglo counterparts. This is just one striking example. I'm just curious about…
Does anyone know why American court opinions tend to omit the word "the" before plaintiff and defendant? For instance "Afterwards plaintiff sued defendant claiming damages". In Australia and the UK, this would be "Afterwards the plaintiff sued the defendant claiming damages". In general US opinions seem more concise and formulaic than their Anglo counterparts. This is just one striking example. I'm just curious about…
Does anyone know why American court opinions tend to omit the word "the" before plaintiff and defendant? For instance "Afterwards plaintiff sued defendant claiming damages". In Australia and the UK, this would be "Afterwards the plaintiff sued the defendant claiming damages". In general US opinions seem more concise and formulaic than their Anglo counterparts. This is just one striking example. I'm just curious about…
Does anyone know why American court opinions tend to omit the word "the" before plaintiff and defendant? For instance "Afterwards plaintiff sued defendant claiming damages". In Australia and the UK, this would be "Afterwards the plaintiff sued the defendant claiming damages". In general US opinions seem more concise and formulaic than their Anglo counterparts. This is just one striking example. I'm just curious about…
Aren’t those usually capitalized as well? I’ve always though that style in legal texts means “a proper noun defined previously” - in case of plaintiff and defendant, probably on the first page. That said I have no legal background so take that with a grain of salt.
Here is a recent example from a 2022 SCOTUS opinion.
"In rejecting petitioners’ allegations, the Seventh Circuit did not apply Tibble’s guidance. [...] The court determined that respondents had provided an adequate array of choices, including “the types of funds plaintiffs wanted (low-cost index funds).”"[0]
By contrast, a decision of the High Court of Australia:
"The appellants applied to the Supreme Court of New South Wales for orders that the third respondent, a former director of Arrium, appear for examination and produce documents. Orders were also sought for the second respondent (the auditor) and the bank who advised on the capital raising to produce certain documents.[1]
[0] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/595/19-1401/
If not, what would hold you back from doing so?
I would be OK hosting a mirror of this service including the infrastructure (and handling the associated costs) if it helps.