|
ISIS CURES TROONS posted:The ruling in the BSQ vs California case is good because it helps slam a nail into the lovely practice of forum shopping. gently caress you, sue in the place you supposedly suffered damages in, not the one that you think is most likely to give you a positive verdict e.g., California and Illinois
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 10:14 |
|
|
twodot posted:As an idiot who knows nothing, is there a reason for lay people to care about forum shopping? Plaintiffs' attorneys? Yes. I don't blame them. You take every advantage you can get. But some of these state jurisdictions go all-in on being pro-plaintiff to the point of absurdity.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:So now we have a different form of forum shopping, by defendants placing their incorporation papers. No. I mean, yes. But it's been that way for a while now. This opinion doesn't touch upon that (except in passing, to describe "general personal jurisdiction"). This opinion talks about where a corporate defendant can be sued in addition to the state of incorporation. To that end, the decision doesn't stop a defendant from being sued in the state where the injury occurred. Or from being sued in the state where (some non-negligible) action contributing to that injury occurred. Plaintiff X just can't rely on the fact that others with similar injuries can sue in any particular state for Plaintiff X to also to be able to sue in that state.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2017 11:21
|
|
|
Devor posted:Everyone knows that jurisprudence fetishists get off on technicalities Heh. I'm convinced that Kennedy is just a mortal, and therefore has come to loving love the nation's attention on him as literally the single most important figure in defining many of the legal and social issues of our time. I'm betting it's a hell of a drug and if he isn't pulling a Souter (getting the gently caress out ASAP) he's going to die in the office.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
JesustheDarkLord posted:You should delete these posts and not tell anyone. This. Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Consult a student loan attorney and save the money. Do not spend the money. Your instinct is correct, there is a good chance it'll be figured out. How long ago was this? Followed by this. In 20 years after your money has accrued a lot of interest after having been invested, if they come after you you can (A) successfully defend against their lovely claims because SOL or something idk lol or (B) if that doesn't work and they actually take you to court you can cross-claim and sue your attorney for malpractice (assuming he told you not to pay it and just pretend it's paid off which lol sounds like some bad legal advice). This isn't legal advice I wasn't here your situation never occurred what are stairs?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
Judges having dinner with other public servants, without more, is not a problem.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2018 04:39
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:I vaguely remember a rule (but can't find a citation) that when a state constitution borrows language from the federal constitution it is presumed to also borrow its meaning, the final arbiter of which is the Supreme Court of the United States. Thus, for example, a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling based on section 8 of the Commonwealth's constitution (a verbatim copy of the US Constitution's 4th amendment) would be reviewable, but one based on section 7 (quite a different phrasing of freedom of speech than the First Amendment) would not be. The rule is whether SCOTUS can determine whether the lower court's decision rested on adequate and independent state grounds. So the question is: did the state supreme court rule only under the umbrella of state law (no federal issue), or did the state supreme court rule on the state law issue by construing/applying federal law because the state constitution follows the federal constitution (yes federal issue)? The wording of the state constitution might play a part in the state supreme court deciding whether the state constitution follows the federal constitution, as a matter of state law, but that's not something that a federal court would be deciding. If the state court is not clear one way or another in its opinion, I believe the current rule is to assume that it was decided solely on state grounds (because federalism), but that is subject to whether SCOTUS really hates the state court and the way it ruled. I believe SCOTUS has gone back and forth on what to presume when the state court decision is ambiguous as to whether it is based on an adequate and independent state ground, though, and the constitution wording argument might have been made by some SCOTUS Justice at one point.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2018 05:41
|
|
|
You assert political question defenses in Rule 12 motions.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2018 05:28
|
|
|
Nah my man. The real rear end in a top hat was SCOTUS all along (for finding out of the ether discretion to decline original jurisdiction cases).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2018 06:18
|
|
|
That’s true. They’ve just been assholes for a very long time. As a matter of first principles it’s wrong. It defeats the entire purpose of having original jurisdiction—a forum to resolve the type of controversy (even if its to say “this needs to be resolved by another branch”).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2018 14:37
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:it's really depressing knowing we're all smarter than the president and at least one supreme court justice. Intelligence ranking time! In all honesty I think Roberts and Kagan are probably the smartest. Roberts is apparently great on wrangling personalities. I think Kagan probably has the purest intellectual power. Ginsburg, Breyer, Gorsuch, Sotomayor, Thomas follow. That's not in any particular order. They're all perfectly within the band of acceptable intelligence of having to deal with Important Legal Topics. Like, this is your smart kid at law school territory--really good, but not superhuman. Kennedy and Alito. Ahem. After my scientific analysis, I see that you are throwing shade at Kennedy and Alito. This is acceptable. OH WAIT LET'S DO WRITING STYLES Kagan (especially after she got the new-justice jitters out of her system) Roberts, Thomas Gorsuch (especially after he got the new-justice jitters out of his system), Sotomayor Alito, Ginsburg (seriously, world, she is not a good writer) Breyer, Kennedy Fight me.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2018 06:30
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:We’re basically hosed now right? Yup.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2018 19:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 10:14 |
|
|
Still Dismal posted:I mean, I think SOCTUS as currently constructed is a bad institution. I don’t think judicial review should exist at all frankly. You don’t have to do the whole performative cynicism thing and just assume sins that aren’t there, you can find plenty of bad things in their history that actually happened. The whole Lochner thing is a pretty convincing argument against its existence alone. Or you think we should get rid of courts altogether?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2020 04:31
|
|