|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Note that judges can and often do overrule/direct verdicts from juries in civil cases, though. ...despite the specific constitutional prohibition on doing this, which everyone has agreed to politely ignore
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 19:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 14:11 |
|
|
Russian commercial procedure rules (note that court procedure rules are a federal statute and also its own subarea of law in these places) allow for juries in commercial cases I have never ever seen a commercial case jury tried. I have seen a motion to do a jury trial once. It failed
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 19:30
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:... wait you have juries in civil cases? There's just no end with you people. Yes! And they vary from state to state. For example, in Louisiana, a case must be worth $50,000 or more to be triable by a jury. In Texas I think it's any case. Here are some of the ways a trial judge can take the case from a jury: 1. Motions to dismiss - before an answer is filed (in favor of defense only) 2. Summary judgment - any time before and during trial (either side) 3. Directed verdict/judgment as a matter of law - after the close of the plaintiff's case (defense only) 4. Directed verdict/judgment as a matter of law - after the close of both sides' cases but before a verdict (either side) 5. JNOV (judgment notwithstanding the verdict) - after the jury reaches a verdict (either side) 6. Motion for new trial - after jury reaches a verdict There are various legal standards for all of these but 3-6 nominally require a judge to find that the verdict was "clearly contrary to the law and evidence" or that a party has failed to present sufficient evidence to allow any reasonable jury to decide in their favor. You'd think this would be a pretty hard standard but lol no. Wait, there's more! The courts of appeal can also substitute themselves for the jury. They pay lip service to the fact that they are not supposed to, but as long as they "establish" the necessary legal standard they can perform their own de novo review of the record (reading transcripts, without the benefit of watching witnesses to gauge their credibility and with the benefit of knowing all of the arguments that occurred outside the jury's hearing and taking into account the lawyers in the case and how much those lawyers supported the judges' election campaigns) do things like: - reverse a jury verdict dismissing a plaintiff's case - reallocate fault among various defendants (and the plaintiff). So if a jury decided the plaintiff was 50% at fault for his own stupidity, the court can say actually no, defendant is 100% at fault. Or if a jury (who is not informed which of the defendants has deep pockets or lots of insurance) allocated, say, 90% fault against an uninsured individual, and 10% fault to the billion dollar company, the appellate court can flip it around. - decide that a jury didn't give a plaintiff enough money and then, and award whatever amount they want, as long as it conforms to whatever standards the appellate court has established for itself. These tend to be very broad ranges, like a range of $20,000 to $400,000 for a bulging disc that does not require surgery. Phil Moscowitz fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Jan 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 19:52
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:... wait you have juries in civil cases? There's just no end with you people. Oh yeah, and we write our own jury charge too, for civil suits. Imagine having to try to word a jury charge for a complex, commercial transaction breach of contract claim. Oh wait, we just put, "do you find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant breached the contract?" and then try to get the jury so mad at the defendant they throw their hands up and say, "Aw hell, I don know, but I'm pretty sure if I says 'yes' he'll get in trouble."
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 19:54
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:...despite the specific constitutional prohibition on doing this, which everyone has agreed to politely ignore Also a product of Gilded Age (I) tampering. In a 5-4 decision, Slocum v. NY Insurance Co. (1913) technically upheld the right, but the winds had clearly shifted. The needs of business (and to be fair, by 1935, a Federal government that was now in the national social safely net business) couldn't abide civil jury nullification.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 19:58
|
|
|
You can get a jury trial between two pro se parties in a justice of the peace court (small claims court) in Texas.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 20:08
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:You can get a jury trial between two pro se parties in a justice of the peace court (small claims court) in Texas. And let me tell you what a poo poo show THAT is, lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 20:17
|
|
|
Oh gently caress I didn't even think about it: You can get a jury trial over a speeding ticket in Texas. A lot of people come in saying, "Nah, I want a jury trial." thinking that will make ol' Blarzgh just dismiss the case. Little do they know, my opening statements during 'voire dire' are gonna go a little something like, "We really appreciate you all being here; as you are starting to understand, the Defendant has the right to make you all miss work to come down here this morning to hear about his speeding ticket..."
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 20:19
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:And let me tell you what a poo poo show THAT is, lol Stories?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 20:50
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:... wait you have juries in civil cases? There's just no end with you people. We let juries decide on the validity of patents.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 20:53
|
|
|
Kalman posted:We let juries decide on the validity of patents. tbf twelve random idiots can't be worse than the federal circuit
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 21:06
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:tbf twelve random idiots can't be worse than the federal circuit 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 21:21
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Oh gently caress I didn't even think about it: Same in Iowa. In my jurisdiction the judges handle a lot of the voir dire and usually ask a question like, "will you be able to administer your oaths faithfully and objectively even if the charges are what some might consider minor?" It's great. evilweasel posted:tbf twelve random idiots can't be worse than the federal circuit 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 21:28
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:tbf twelve random idiots can't be worse than the federal circuit lol SlyFrog posted:One cannot experience the dark joy of Cassandra if one does not publicly pronounce the prophecies. also lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 21:30
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:tbf twelve random idiots can't be worse than the federal circuit I'd have said that once. Then I watched mock jury deliberations on a few patent cases.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 21:35
|
|
|
TheMadMilkman posted:Stories? No, not really. JP is a free-for-all already, where the Judge isn't even an actual lawyer, there are no "rules" of evidence or order of pleadings or antyhing and when his responsibilities then extend to managing the law for the jury, without even knowing what the law is you get.... something magical. Add in that lots of JPs hate lawyers, so they'll spend the whole trial trying to make you the bad guy if the other party is pro se.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 23:08
|
|
|
Another devil gets its horns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 23:23
|
|
|
Congrats and welcome to the ranks!
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 00:12
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Got another paid Sondheim gig. Go to law school! Subsidize your late entry acting career. I got a new job with the state attorney general this week, in part, by impressing the interviewer with the fact that I was producing an improv comedy just down the street from her house. (Results not typical.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 00:32
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Oh gently caress I didn't even think about it: I've never done speeding tickets but have found that at least for class A/B misdemeanors jurors seem more predisposed to blame the State than the defense for "wasting their time" with a jury trial. For whatever reason jurors seem a hell of a lot more likely to hold the State to their burden if the charge is something stupid than a serious felony where the stakes are higher. In short, misdemeanor jury trials rule.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 01:49
|
|
|
Happy Q4 distribution week!
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 02:29
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/ZoeTillman/status/1090025939810037762 Lol I love it when lawyers get lit up in Pacer commentary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 02:49
|
|
|
Look Sir Droids posted:https://mobile.twitter.com/ZoeTillman/status/1090025939810037762 I mean there isn’t a lawyer who practices in Federal court that hasn’t been deficiency-slapped by a clerk, but those are some detailed minute entries by the magistrate. I’ve never appeared there but I have appeared pro hac vice in several Federal courts and never been bounced for any reason.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 03:20
|
|
|
What if... immigration courts had a jury right
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 03:48
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:What if... These don't look like a jury of MY peers 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 03:49
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:What if... There’s no right to an appointed lawyer so it’d just be like traffic court in Texas
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 04:23
|
|
|
sounds excellent. I wonder if they could do live broadcast.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 05:26
|
|
|
cjs*: I am soft inside counsel now. I just got an email from outside counsel. It is roughly 10:30pm. The matter the email is about is completely pointless. Nonetheless, because I got the email, I am dropping what I was doing** and responding within 15 minutes of getting the email, late at night, because I am broken. Summary: don't go to law school. *current job status, if you don't also read YOSPOS. **in fairness, I'm watching a chess twitch stream and playing Stellaris.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 05:27
|
|
|
ulmont posted:I am soft inside counsel now. Phrasing
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 05:37
|
|
|
ulmont posted:cjs*: I am soft inside counsel now. I just got an email from outside counsel. It is roughly 10:30pm. The matter the email is about is completely pointless. Nonetheless, because I got the email, I am dropping what I was doing** and responding within 15 minutes of getting the email, late at night, because I am broken. First off. You’re in house. Stop checking your email after work hours. Second, answering now just gives oc a chance to bill you more money about pointless issues. Don’t set a bad precedent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 05:46
|
|
|
Meatbag Esq. posted:First off. You’re in house. Stop checking your email after work hours. Second, answering now just gives oc a chance to bill you more money about pointless issues. Don’t set a bad precedent. 1. HOW CAN I KNOW I DON'T HAVE WORK EMAILS TO ANSWER IMMEDIATELY IF I DON'T HAVE ALL MY WORK EMAILS SENT TO MY PHONE AND HOME COMPUTER? 2. Yeah, like oc can't bill me about pointless bullshit pretty much at will as long as they don't get too greedy. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 06:20
|
|
|
ulmont posted:cjs*: I am soft inside counsel now. I just got an email from outside counsel. It is roughly 10:30pm. The matter the email is about is completely pointless. Nonetheless, because I got the email, I am dropping what I was doing** and responding within 15 minutes of getting the email, late at night, because I am broken. I've been in-house for two months and I already got to tell one outside counsel not to email at midnight unless necessary, because it won'be useful most of the time. ...I do still have to answer work emails at all times because I work with 10 different timezones 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 07:00
|
|
|
ulmont posted:1. HOW CAN I KNOW I DON'T HAVE WORK EMAILS TO ANSWER IMMEDIATELY IF I DON'T HAVE ALL MY WORK EMAILS SENT TO MY PHONE AND HOME COMPUTER? If your job isn't paying for your phone or internet, the work you're doing isn't important enough to send to your personal devices. quote:2. Yeah, like oc can't bill me about pointless bullshit pretty much at will as long as they don't get too greedy. Just because OC is working at 10 doesn't mean it's urgent... it probably just means OC is working late to finish stuff up. Setting precedent that their 10pm emails are going to be treated as urgent a) encourages them to send emails after 10 and b) encourages them to do other work first when the deadline is "today" cause you're still going to be up later than lazier in house counsel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 07:34
|
|
|
Meatbag Esq. posted:If your job isn't paying for your phone or internet, the work you're doing isn't important enough to send to your personal devices. My job keeps trying to give me a phone, and I keep coming up with reasons for them not to give me one. Is it between 9-5 or 8-4 (depending on the day) on a work day? Then I'll check email. Otherwise gently caress that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 07:40
|
|
|
I had another partner get mad at me because I didn't respond to his client's email within 30 minutes. As an unrelated aside, I just got DEXA scanned this morning and my body fat is now at 4.4%. I asked the nurse at the sports medicine clinic what is the lowest body fat they've seen and she said she believes that it is me. I decided I'm not going to try to get any leaner. This is enough.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 16:40
|
|
|
Yuns posted:As an unrelated aside, I just got DEXA scanned this morning and my body fat is now at 4.4%. I asked the nurse at the sports medicine clinic what is the lowest body fat they've seen and she said she believes that it is me. I decided I'm not going to try to get any leaner. This is enough. we should start a parlour game called "Yuns Quote or Bateman Quote?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 16:47
|
|
|
Yuns is the best. He could also beat up pretty much any other goon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 16:56
|
|
|
Yuns posted:I had another partner get mad at me because I didn't respond to his client's email within 30 minutes. We get it. You’re ripped.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 16:57
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Yuns is the best. He could also beat up pretty much any other goon. My partner could beat up your partner
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 16:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 14:11 |
|
|
Yuns you should start a gym at work and require that junior associates train.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 17:03
|
|