Архитектура Аудит Военная наука Иностранные языки Медицина Металлургия Метрология Образование Политология Производство Психология Стандартизация Технологии |
What is a Frivolous Lawsuit?⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 19 из 19
A frivolous lawsuit refers to a lawsuit that is brought without justification and has no merit. In order for a suit to be considered frivolous under the law, generally there must be no legal grounds for such a suit. Some people believe that a frivolous lawsuit refers to any silly lawsuit. In general, however, frivolous lawsuits in the eyes of the law mean something more specific. Even if a lawsuit is silly, it does not necessarily mean it is without legal merit. When a plaintiff files papers, he must list the facts surrounding the litigation. He must also list the legal grounds, in other words, what law or legal duty was breached. Finally, he must list the damages he suffered. The court uses this to determine whether there is a potential legal question and whether it is possible that some duty or law was breached. If the facts cannot possibly add up to a breach of legal duty, or if there are no legal grounds for a lawsuit, the claim may be considered a frivolous lawsuit. The plaintiff may file frivolous lawsuits for any number of reasons. The plaintiff may wish to harass the defendant or may truly believe that he has grounds for the suit. If a defendant is the subject of a frivolous lawsuit, he may be able to sue the other party for the tort of malicious prosecution. In order to win such a case, however, the defendant would need to demonstrate not just that the plaintiff's lawsuit was a frivolous lawsuit and without merit, but also that the plaintiff knew it was frivolous and filed it anyway out of malicious intent.
Adapted from http: //www.wisegeek.com The Trial Most lawsuits never go to trial. The parties settle their dispute or simply drop the case. Often, the outcome of a pretrial motion resolves the case or encourages one of the parties to settle. If a case does go to trial, it’s usually because the parties disagree so much about the underlying facts that they need a judge to decide whose version is correct. Trials involve a set of rituals that are supposed to ferret out the truth. The biggest determinant of what happens in a trial is whether it is a trial by jury or a trial by judge. Many of the rules governing trial procedure are aimed at producing an impartial jury and making sure that the jury doesn’t receive evidence that is unreliable in some fundamental way. Judges, on the other hand, are presumed to be able to act impartially and tell reliable evidence from unreliable evidence. Jury trials begin with the selection of the jury. The judge and lawyers for both sides question potential jurors about their knowledge of the case and possible biases relating to their clients and the important issues in the case. This process is called “voir dire.” Once a jury is selected, the attorneys address the jury in opening statements that outline what they expect to show in the upcoming trial. Then the plaintiff begins, offering testimony from witnesses and information in documents to establish a version of events. The testimony and documents are then subject to challenge by the defendant through a process called “cross-examination.” Once the plaintiff’s case is presented, the defendant has the opportunity to present a defense, subject to the plaintiff’s cross-examination. Commonly, the plaintiff gets the last shot (called a “rebuttal”) in an opportunity to answer the defendant’s case.
Adapted from Legal Research by Stephen Elias Irregular verbs
|
Последнее изменение этой страницы: 2019-06-19; Просмотров: 378; Нарушение авторского права страницы