- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 8/31/16 at 1:21 am to QJenk
quote:
You do realize you dont have to automatically be against the black man's side right. Its ok, sometimes the black man is in the right, and white guy is wrong. It happens
Holy crap this is racist.
Posted on 8/31/16 at 1:24 am to Street Hawk
Trial court will do additur, or appeals court will fix it. Jury prolly turned off by plf atty's excessive demands, but award is ridiculously low.
Posted on 8/31/16 at 1:43 am to slackster
Scum. I'm almost always for police but these police unions that keep guys like this employed are bs.
I'll never forget watching a cop screw up. Someone was possibly hurt. He calmly took of his gun and belt and went to go sit in his cruiser leaving his partner behind to deal with the situation. When questioned about his behavior, his response was "I've been informed by my union to immediay extradite myself from a situation as soon as something goes south and to call the union and let them handle things from there one out."
The supervisor, furious, "and you couldn't be bothered to call an ambulance. To help your partner!"
And the offixe responded "well, that'd be a conflict of interest according to my union."
I'll never forget watching a cop screw up. Someone was possibly hurt. He calmly took of his gun and belt and went to go sit in his cruiser leaving his partner behind to deal with the situation. When questioned about his behavior, his response was "I've been informed by my union to immediay extradite myself from a situation as soon as something goes south and to call the union and let them handle things from there one out."
The supervisor, furious, "and you couldn't be bothered to call an ambulance. To help your partner!"
And the offixe responded "well, that'd be a conflict of interest according to my union."
Posted on 8/31/16 at 2:50 am to Titus Pullo
Not sure why you are flicking me off. I think the plaintiff had a $hitty attorney.
Rule 68 is applicable because the plaintiff did not accept the settlement offer that was more than he was awarded after trial. Specifically, 68(d):
Rule 68. Offer of Judgment
(d) Paying Costs After an Unaccepted Offer.If the judgment that the offeree finally obtains is not more favorable than the unaccepted offer, the offeree must pay the costs incurred after the offer was made.
Rule68.Offer of Judgment, 2 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules and Commentary Rule 68
In layman's terms, the plaintiff lost money by winning this judgment because of his $hitty attorney.
Rule 68 is a settlement device. It uses cost-shifting to encourage the plaintiff to accept. Under Rule 68, the defendant offers to have judgment entered against it in a specified amount. If the plaintiff rejects the offer and then wins the case, but the ultimate judgment fails to beat the offer, then instead of receiving its costs as the prevailing party, the plaintiff does not receive its post-offer costs and must pay the defendant's post-offer costs. If only statutory costs like filing fees and court reporter fees were at stake, Rule 68 would have little bite. But the Supreme Court has held that Rule 68 applies to attorneys' fees when the statute that makes them available defines them as “costs.” Thus, in these cases, parties must take care to properly calculate the value of any Rule 68 offers they make or receive and must recognize that post-offer attorney's fees might be at stake.
Rule68.Offer of Judgment, 2 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules and Commentary Rule 68
Rule 68 is applicable because the plaintiff did not accept the settlement offer that was more than he was awarded after trial. Specifically, 68(d):
Rule 68. Offer of Judgment
(d) Paying Costs After an Unaccepted Offer.If the judgment that the offeree finally obtains is not more favorable than the unaccepted offer, the offeree must pay the costs incurred after the offer was made.
Rule68.Offer of Judgment, 2 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules and Commentary Rule 68
In layman's terms, the plaintiff lost money by winning this judgment because of his $hitty attorney.
Rule 68 is a settlement device. It uses cost-shifting to encourage the plaintiff to accept. Under Rule 68, the defendant offers to have judgment entered against it in a specified amount. If the plaintiff rejects the offer and then wins the case, but the ultimate judgment fails to beat the offer, then instead of receiving its costs as the prevailing party, the plaintiff does not receive its post-offer costs and must pay the defendant's post-offer costs. If only statutory costs like filing fees and court reporter fees were at stake, Rule 68 would have little bite. But the Supreme Court has held that Rule 68 applies to attorneys' fees when the statute that makes them available defines them as “costs.” Thus, in these cases, parties must take care to properly calculate the value of any Rule 68 offers they make or receive and must recognize that post-offer attorney's fees might be at stake.
Rule68.Offer of Judgment, 2 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules and Commentary Rule 68
This post was edited on 8/31/16 at 2:59 am
Posted on 8/31/16 at 5:58 am to slackster
These officers sound like jackasses.
Posted on 8/31/16 at 6:03 am to slackster
quote:
How the frick are these 3 guys still employed?
I'm pretty sure they retired to become TD mods.
Posted on 8/31/16 at 6:15 am to purpleleaf
quote:
like he got paid $17 too much.
He got $18 too much
Posted on 8/31/16 at 6:19 am to purpleleaf
quote:
Sounds like he got paid $14.50 too much.
Posted on 8/31/16 at 6:41 am to Street Hawk
Well he can't bitch about not getting anything out of it.
Posted on 8/31/16 at 7:20 am to Street Hawk
Hope he split some with his babies mama's.
Posted on 8/31/16 at 7:26 am to Spaceman Spiff
quote:
He got $18 too much
So a group of thugs that are supposed to be protecting you breaks your door down tonight and they assault you, use a taser on you, handcuff and imprison you and you don't think you should be able to sue for a substantial amount of money?
Please expound on why $18 was "too much"
I seriously hope all the assholes in here making light of this get their asses beat by a group of cops and get wrongfully accused and jailed so they know what it feels like.
This post was edited on 8/31/16 at 7:28 am
Posted on 8/31/16 at 7:28 am to GoT1de
quote:
Hope he split some with his babies mama's.
Hopefully he donates it to you and you're able to find a quality English tutor who will work with a racist.
Posted on 8/31/16 at 7:29 am to slackster
Wow, that lawyer sucks arse. Not even a quack doctor's note regarding physical pain? That's like Damages 101.
I suspect there will be some "new evidence" introduced in the appeal.
I suspect there will be some "new evidence" introduced in the appeal.
Posted on 8/31/16 at 7:30 am to Five0
Do you think those cops should be put in jail?
Posted on 8/31/16 at 7:33 am to slackster
quote:
Although the jury found constitutional violations, there was no evidence presented in court that supported the amount of damages that the Franklins were seeking.
quote:
In civil rights lawsuits, damages are usually measured by medical bills, lost wages, property damage, post-traumatic stress, psychological treatment, impairment and others, Agostino said. But in this case, no such evidence was presented, so the jury awarded the plaintiffs the default amount of $1, he said.
Holy shite, this is a truly shitty attorney.
The jury is supposed to award damages based on evidence. They were given zero evidence of damages. Unless indiana allows punitive damages and the jury ignored it - which i seriously doubt, because A) this was pretty egregious, and B) a lot of times the gov't is immune from punitive damages - then they did the right thing.
this is all on the attorney.
Posted on 8/31/16 at 7:34 am to TutHillTiger
quote:
No really, he will get attorneys fees which will be way more than 15k. to take a case to jury, at least 30-50k
The attorneys fees will be reduced in proportion to the degree of success obtained. They aren't getting $50k on a 1983 case that paid $18.
Posted on 8/31/16 at 7:40 am to Street Hawk
quote:
The total award was $18 in damages.
But if he spends it on powerball, mega millions, or some scratch-offs, he could be set for life...
This post was edited on 8/31/16 at 7:41 am
Posted on 8/31/16 at 7:43 am to slackster
quote:
$1MM is absurd too
Says the guy who didn't get his house broken into and his arse beat and tased and falsely accused when did absolutely nothing wrong. These police officers are the rogue thug type that clearly abuse power and get away with it. They need to be fired.
Posted on 8/31/16 at 7:46 am to Street Hawk
quote:
he did fit the description of a suspect being sought by officers: a slender, African American man with dreads.
Not buying the story, this baw is guilty
Page 2 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News