Talk:Frivolous litigation

message: Deleted the following section because the citation does not state that the filings were ever deemed frivolous by the court.  While the case is certainly frivolous in the colloquial sense, it does not meet the legal definition, at least according to this citation 24.18.240.27 (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted section

message: Am I right in thinking that this article focusses (almost?) entierly on US law, without explicitly stating that it is doing so? Certainly the last section, on tort law, seems to be so. TRiG 00:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Very American.

message: I edited out the McDonalds coffee spill case, as it was not a true example of a frivolous lawsuit. The coffee was much hotter than it should have been, as testified to by people working in McDonalds. Thus, the corporation was neglegent for brewing it at that temperature.
Liebeck v. McDonald's Corp.
:(responding to above by IP 192.34.64.2)  Agreed that the case is not frivolous in the technical sense, there are still many people who disagree with the finding of negligence.  Some common arguments:
:* Coffee that is too hot is an expected hazard, like finding an unpitted cherry in a pie.
:* Mr. Liebeck's own negligence materially contributed to her injuries.
:On the one hand, one or more concrete examples, properly analyzed to reflect all POV's might be useful.  On the other, it might start another damned list.  Any thoughts?  Robert A West 19:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: McDonalds.

message: I removed this line: where there is no link between the conduct of the defendant and the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. There is no theory of recovery in tort law that supports this statement. It is factually incorrect. All theories of tort law require a a link between the conduct of the defendant and the injuries sustained. Its called causation. See Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. which deals with causation and negligence, which is the most common tort theory. However, it is equally true in strict liability theories. Strict liability includes the subset known as products liability. This theory of recovery still requires that the defendant "do something" to set the events leading to the cause of action in motion. For example blasting dynamite is a strict liabiltiy situation. To be held liable in a theory of strict liability in a case involvoing dynamite requires the defendant to do something- blast dynamite. Causation is most obvious in intentional tort cases. The link may be less obvious in cases involving respondeat superior or agent- principal. But there is a logical link nevertheless.  
Bottom line: There is always a link beteen the between the conduct of the defendant and the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. Gfwesq 00:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Causation

message: I made two sets of changes, neither of which, I believe, affect the substance of the note.  However, the first set of changes reorders the discussion to identify the colloquial/political definition first, moving the legal definition to second place.
This is fair because millions of people, from President Bush and dozens of state governors on down, use "frivolous" in the colloquial/political sense.  Only a few thousand lawyers actually engaged in trial praactice are familiar with the technical-legal meaning of the term.  
Given these facts, it is far more appropriate to lead with the general definition used by laymen, then discuss the term as used by lawyers and judges.
I did not intend to change any of the substance, although I eliminated one "dead link" and one footnote (formerly footnote 3), the latter largely because I don't comprehend how these notes are generated and altered through editing.  Perhaps someone can repair this damage.  Former foonote three should become 1, with following notes renumbered.  
I don't intend to open another spin war, such as infests the "tort reform" entry in Wikipedia.  The latter is a hopelessly politicized entry that needs to be redone from the ground up.
The second set of changes picked up on a discussion point noting that these terms relate to United States usage, which is a fair comment.  This led me to restructure some of the sentences to incorporate this suggestion without in any way altering (I hope) the content.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrister noir (talk • contribs) 00:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation for changes made November 6, 2007

message: Hi, my name is Halie. I don't know much about this word but im making vocabulary cards and this is one of my vocabulary words. This place is stupid and the information on this website is totaly FAKE ! I mean I'm sitting here talking to you people and I'm not even a professional! All I'm saying is that this website lets random people on this website to give information about a subject. Well, I have information on this website. The information on this website isn't evenhalf true! That means that you may have been taking false information about something you needed. I don't like this website and niether should you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.18.58.161 (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Halie. Are you talking about Wikipedia in general or just this article? This article is well cited and shouldn't have any false information. Xenon54 (Frohe Feiertage!) 22:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hi

message: I came across a paragraph in this article that looks like it was inserted in connection with the Kay Sieverding case. Some of the material in the paragraph was blatantly false, and much of it appeared to be POV rant. At first I tried to edit the paragraph, but finally decided just to delete it, as it contained so much improperly sourced (and, bluntly, false) information.  Famspear (talk) 22:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: When a litigant is "pro se", without a lawyer, no statements of fact or citations of law are needed to find "frivolousness". When a litigant has no lawyer, their summary judgment motions may be "struck" without hearing and ignored. http://www.steamboatpilot.com/news/2003/nov/03/sieverding_responds_to/ If the pro se litigant persists in arguing that their facts and claims should be recognized and goes to another court to file a related hearing or a Rule 60 motion, then they can be summarily jailed. No statutory basis is needed and no evidentiary hearing is required. This is called "direct contempt" because it involves disobeying of a direct order. When judges order pro se litigants to write what they are dictated and sign their names to it, the pro se litigants have no first amendment or due process rights. This is because courts are self regulating and the equal protection and other rights don't apply in court. The inherent powers of federal courts allow them to modify procedures and laws as they think best. see Edward Nottingham
Much of this material is blatantly false, and not supported by the citations. For example, there is absolutely no rule of law that says that a pro se litigant loses First Amendment or due process rights in the situation described. Indeed, there are no such "rights" to lose; there is no right at all to engage in frivolous litigation -- and certainly no "First Amendment" or "due process" right to do so. The statement that "equal protection and other rights don't apply in court" is preposterous. And no, courts cannot "modify procedures and laws as they think best." Famspear (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraph deleted

message: This article needs to be expanded and all assertions need to be specifically cited.  The danger that allows a court or appeals court to simply 'rule' that a matter is frivolous is dangerous to this and any nations sovereignty.  For the court to say "we are not obliged to suffer in silence the filing of baseless, insupportable appeals" is 100% fallacy, and I would not expect wikipedia to propagate such nonsense. It is their function and duty as appointed "representatives of the people to do just that, listen to argument and refute them with previous laws and rulings, not decide matters based on how they Feel or how it impacts them personally.  (6-12-12 User: Licensed Officer of the State of Florida)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.51.69 (talk) 06:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, allowing a court to simply rule that a matter is frivolous is not dangerous to a nation's sovereignty. And, no, Wikipedia is not propogating "nonsense." Under the U.S. legal system, it is emphatically the province and duty of the courts of law to rule on what the law is. Stating that a judge decides a matter based on "how he feels" or how the matter "impacts them personally" is just another way of saying "the judge didn't rule the way I wanted." No one has a legal right to clog up the court system with baseless, insupportable appeals, and whether an appeal fits that category is properly decided by a judge, not by one of the litigants to the proceeding, and not by anonymous Wikipedia editors. Famspear (talk) 11:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes on this subject

message: This is about the united states,which is fine, but it should be labeled as such, 
and include factual explanation that popularizing a notion of "frivolous lawsuits" was a propaganda campaign of the republican party and the rich they represent, who wish to be law-exempt (along with already being tax exempt to a damaging degree, due to buying their way into legislative power so they can pass laws to exempt themselves from paying said taxes, and from obeying laws, obeying regulations, or paying employees even. Said republicans and the rich they represent bought the entire media so they could brainwash the populace into parroting propaganda - including the Reagan-Bush era "frivolous lawsuits" campaigning - thus the public is duped into spreading the lies used to harm themselves. 
Anyone disagreeing with these FACTS be advised that an encyclopedia is not a place for propagating political lies -especially ones that cause harm to a country or people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.47.231 (talk • contribs) 
:No. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 03:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is about the u.s. & should be labeled as such, and then properly include that popularizing a notion of "frivolous lawsuits" was a political party's  propaganda campaign