quote:But I could swear folks here have assured me that kind of case never makes it to court.
I spent a week on a civil trial jury where it was an apparent money grab. The plaintiff was a POS and the company he sued spent no telling how much money on legal fees an we knew on day one there wasn't much of a case.
But I could swear folks here have assured me that kind of case never makes it to court.
1) Deters Just cases that aren't clear winners
quote:This seems to be the obvious problem. Perhaps the decision to make the loser pay could be left to the jury if they find the lawsuit frivolous?
I'm sure people will fine trying to take on a large corp., knowing that if they lose they will be on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Insurance rates and claims/costs went down
quote:Sure, but then you'd have to have a waiver for the indigent for this to even come remotely close to passing Constitutional muster - and a waiver for the indigent wouldn't prevent the large # of "frivolous" lawsuits anyhow as the poors sue more than the non-poors.
Loser pays $2k max would serve the stated purpose of punishing overly litigious folks while still retaining access to the American judicial system.
quote:What does this even mean? Are you referring to lawyers using public info of the state? The horror!
And how many use their "access" to State information & statistics to help them in their suits against the State? This will never ever happen
Judges decide if a case has merit.
Judges decide if a case has merit. Why does this board have a problem with our basic legal system. 90% of court cases are businesses suing other businesses. I have never heard anyone, not even a doctor say that they weren't going to make an investment because they were afraid of being sued. Yeah they mouth the tired, trite generalizations like this board but "tort reform" is not is the decision making process.