Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (24047)	7/14/2006 11:09:23 AM
From: MichaelSkyy	Respond to of 541421

This definition works for me: en.wikipedia.org Frivolous litigation refers to the lawsuit in which a defense or claim is presented in spite of the fact that both the party and the party's attorney knew that it had no merit and it did not argue for a reasonable extension or reinterpretation of the law or no underlying justification in fact based upon the lawyer's due diligence investigation of the case before presenting the position (e.g., the well known U.S. Federal Rule 11). Jurisdictions differ on whether a claim or defense can be frivolous if the attorney acted in good faith. Because a frivolous defense or claim wastes the court's and the other parties' time, resources and legal fees, it may result in sanctions being levied by a court upon the party or the lawyer who presents the frivolous defense or claim. Lawyer Daniel B. Evans writes: [W]hen a judge calls an argument "ridiculous" or "frivolous," it is absolutely the worst thing the judge could say. It means that the person arguing the position has absolutely no idea of what he is doing, and has completely wasted everyone's time. It doesn't mean that the case wasn't well argued, or that judge simply decided for the other side, it means that there was no other side. The argument was absolutely, positively, incompetent. The judge is not telling you that you were "wrong." The judge is telling you that you are out of your mind. [1] Litigants who represent themselves (in forma pauperis and pro se) often make frivolous arguments due to their limited knowledge of the law and procedure. The particular tendency of prisoners to bring baseless lawsuits led Congress to pass and President Bill Clinton to sign the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which strictly limits the ability of prisoners to bring actions. The more common use of the term "frivolous" in political discourse refers to lawsuits that are based on a theory that seems absurd or where the claim results in damages that greatly exceed what one would expect from a brief summary of the case. Awards for medical malpractice are frequently derided as frivolous, notwithstanding the fact that damages to the victim in medical malpractice cases are almost always long term and expensive requiring long term care which means by necessity high awards. However, if a jury and a judge decided in favor of the plaintiff in such cases, the plaintiff's claim was technically not frivolous, though it might be considered frivolous colloquially. Because of the ambiguity in the term, calling these lawsuits "frivolous" can lead to confusion because opposite sides of the tort reform debate can both say they oppose "frivolous" suits, with the tort reform supporters referring to the colloquial understanding, and tort reform opponents referring to the narrower technical definition.[2]