|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 31 2016 04:17 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:12 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the one who loses the lawsuit have to pay all costs though? Yes, they always pay the costs. Depending upon the claims and laws at issue, the loser may have to pay the attorney fees, too. Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:16 Plansix wrote:On August 31 2016 04:12 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the one who loses the lawsuit have to pay all costs though? Rarely in the US. It is the exception by a long shot. gonna need someone to put up a source now important to note xdaunt is separating court costs from attorney fees here, when attorney fees can be a big part of the "costs"
Court cost vs Attorney fees indeed.
So what xDaunt says is that yes, you can bankrupt someone through bogus 0 proof court cases because he still has to get an attorney every time and that is not payed by the losing party.
|
On August 31 2016 04:20 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:18 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:17 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On August 31 2016 04:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:12 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the one who loses the lawsuit have to pay all costs though? Yes, they always pay the costs. Depending upon the claims and laws at issue, the loser may have to pay the attorney fees, too. On August 31 2016 04:16 Plansix wrote:On August 31 2016 04:12 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the one who loses the lawsuit have to pay all costs though? Rarely in the US. It is the exception by a long shot. gonna need someone to put up a source now Listen to the attorney, not the paralegal. ad hominem yo i just want any sort of evidence and im assuming your accumulated expertise will help you locate such a thing faster than my generalized google-fu
There is no source because it is jurisdictionally dependent by statute and by case law.
|
On August 31 2016 04:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:20 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On August 31 2016 04:18 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:17 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On August 31 2016 04:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:12 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the one who loses the lawsuit have to pay all costs though? Yes, they always pay the costs. Depending upon the claims and laws at issue, the loser may have to pay the attorney fees, too. On August 31 2016 04:16 Plansix wrote:On August 31 2016 04:12 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the one who loses the lawsuit have to pay all costs though? Rarely in the US. It is the exception by a long shot. gonna need someone to put up a source now Listen to the attorney, not the paralegal. ad hominem yo i just want any sort of evidence and im assuming your accumulated expertise will help you locate such a thing faster than my generalized google-fu There is no source because it is jurisdictionally dependent by statute and by case law.
...which means the loser doesn't always pay the costs?
|
On August 31 2016 04:04 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:01 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 03:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On August 31 2016 03:54 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 02:10 Slaughter wrote:
Mitch McConnell is such a clown and a disgrace. He usually is, but this time out of sheer self-interest, he's doing the right thing. The American people deserve a referendum to who selects the next justice-legislator. I'm sure you can comfort yourself that Hillary is ahead. I say given Grassley's voting pattern, he'll soon be just as dirty as McConnell if he isn't already. Which was the 2012 election... Which was Sotomayor & Kagan. The confirming senate in those days was freely elected, just as the one not holding a confirmation today. it applies to ALL vacancies that occur during his tenure in office, as you well know. don't troll with unsound counters.
It's all informal now, don't cherry pick your extreme literal readings. The senate today was not the senate the confirmed his prior appointments. Senates during Obama did not go 100-0 in confirmations, in fact Kagan's barely cleared consent for the filibuster phase. Now the American people have voted in more Republicans in 2014 to take back the Senate. The Supreme Court for some time now has functioned as a lawmaking organization, and the appointments for life make no sense if this is still a government of the People. However, constitutional forms have not been amended and they are appointed for life. The 2016 election ought to have that responsibility at this moment. It was Biden and the Democrats back in the day that suggested it. I had hoped you'd believe more in bipartisanship, zlefin!
|
On August 31 2016 04:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:22 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:20 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On August 31 2016 04:18 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:17 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On August 31 2016 04:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:12 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the one who loses the lawsuit have to pay all costs though? Yes, they always pay the costs. Depending upon the claims and laws at issue, the loser may have to pay the attorney fees, too. On August 31 2016 04:16 Plansix wrote:On August 31 2016 04:12 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the one who loses the lawsuit have to pay all costs though? Rarely in the US. It is the exception by a long shot. gonna need someone to put up a source now Listen to the attorney, not the paralegal. ad hominem yo i just want any sort of evidence and im assuming your accumulated expertise will help you locate such a thing faster than my generalized google-fu There is no source because it is jurisdictionally dependent by statute and by case law. ...which means the loser doesn't always pay the costs?
No, it means that I'd have to provide hundreds of links to provide a source, which is a waste of my time. The problem is that the source is going to be different for each state and for the federal courts.
But hey, y'all have an actual fucking expert in here who does this for a living, so why not listen to him?
|
On August 31 2016 04:22 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:17 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On August 31 2016 04:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:12 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the one who loses the lawsuit have to pay all costs though? Yes, they always pay the costs. Depending upon the claims and laws at issue, the loser may have to pay the attorney fees, too. On August 31 2016 04:16 Plansix wrote:On August 31 2016 04:12 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the one who loses the lawsuit have to pay all costs though? Rarely in the US. It is the exception by a long shot. gonna need someone to put up a source now important to note xdaunt is separating court costs from attorney fees here, when attorney fees can be a big part of the "costs" Court cost vs Attorney fees indeed. So what xDaunt says is that yes, you can bankrupt someone through bogus 0 proof court cases because he still has to get an attorney every time and that is not payed by the losing party.
No, filing "bogus 0 proof court cases" will result in the defendant being awarded his attorney fees and costs. Plus, the defendant may have a counterclaim for malicious prosecution, which could get him even more money.
|
On August 31 2016 04:26 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:04 zlefin wrote:On August 31 2016 04:01 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 03:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On August 31 2016 03:54 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 02:10 Slaughter wrote:
Mitch McConnell is such a clown and a disgrace. He usually is, but this time out of sheer self-interest, he's doing the right thing. The American people deserve a referendum to who selects the next justice-legislator. I'm sure you can comfort yourself that Hillary is ahead. I say given Grassley's voting pattern, he'll soon be just as dirty as McConnell if he isn't already. Which was the 2012 election... Which was Sotomayor & Kagan. The confirming senate in those days was freely elected, just as the one not holding a confirmation today. it applies to ALL vacancies that occur during his tenure in office, as you well know. don't troll with unsound counters. It's all informal now, don't cherry pick your extreme literal readings. The senate today was not the senate the confirmed his prior appointments. Senates during Obama did not go 100-0 in confirmations, in fact Kagan's barely cleared consent for the filibuster phase. Now the American people have voted in more Republicans in 2014 to take back the Senate. The Supreme Court for some time now has functioned as a lawmaking organization, and the appointments for life make no sense if this is still a government of the People. However, constitutional forms have not been amended and they are appointed for life. The 2016 election ought to have that responsibility at this moment. It was Biden and the Democrats back in the day that suggested it. I had hoped you'd believe more in bipartisanship, zlefin!
suggested but did not implement.
And I'm for the constitution, which the republicans are not following by refusing to hear the nominee at all.
Bipartisanship is good, but it takes two sides willing to work together, when the republicans are not.
And appointments for life make perfect sense, as it's not a lawmaking organization, despite your claims to the contrary, and it's clear the elected judges do a worse job than appointed judges anyways.
|
On August 31 2016 04:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:22 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 04:17 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On August 31 2016 04:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:12 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the one who loses the lawsuit have to pay all costs though? Yes, they always pay the costs. Depending upon the claims and laws at issue, the loser may have to pay the attorney fees, too. On August 31 2016 04:16 Plansix wrote:On August 31 2016 04:12 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the one who loses the lawsuit have to pay all costs though? Rarely in the US. It is the exception by a long shot. gonna need someone to put up a source now important to note xdaunt is separating court costs from attorney fees here, when attorney fees can be a big part of the "costs" Court cost vs Attorney fees indeed. So what xDaunt says is that yes, you can bankrupt someone through bogus 0 proof court cases because he still has to get an attorney every time and that is not payed by the losing party. No, filing "bogus 0 proof court cases" will result in the defendant being awarded his attorney fees and costs. Plus, the defendant may have a counterclaim for malicious prosecution, which could get him even more money.
And yet we have Trump saying that he can financially ruin people with such claims.
So he is yet again lying through his teeth while attempting to strong arm a journalist?
|
President Obama shortened the prison sentences of 111 inmates Tuesday, including 35 people who had expected to spend the rest of their lives in federal custody, authorities told NPR.
Word of the new batch of clemency grants came as the second-in-command at the Justice Department told NPR that lawyers there have worked through an enormous backlog of drug cases and, despite doubts from prisoner advocates, they will be able to consider each of the thousands of applications from drug criminals before Obama leaves office in 2017.
"At our current pace, we are confident that we will be able to review and make a recommendation to the president on every single drug petition we currently have," Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates said.
The early releases apply to mostly non-violent drug offenders who would have received lighter punishments if they committed the same crimes today. The new commutations mean this White House has granted 673 commutations, more than the past 10 presidents combined. Tuesday's grants follow 214 more earlier this month.
In February the new pardon attorney, Robert Zauzmer, asserted that stacks of petitions would not be left on his table next year. But that had long been in doubt. After the Justice Department and the White House launched the initiative for drug offenders about two years ago, white collar criminals, sex predators and violent criminals sent their applications, too. Those petitions flooded volunteer lawyers and officials in the Office of Pardon Attorney.
The pardon attorney, Deborah Leff, ultimately resigned after raising alarms about insufficient resources to do the job, which she said could "change the lives of a great many deserving people."
Lawyers working for prisoners said there's still a lot more work for the administration to do. Mark Osler, who led an effort by three dozen law professors and advocates to get the White House to pick up the pace, estimated that 1,500 drug prisoners should win commutations based on the administration's criteria. By his math, that means the president has not yet moved on more than half of the inmates who should win shorter sentences.
Source
|
On August 31 2016 04:30 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:27 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:22 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 04:17 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On August 31 2016 04:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:12 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the one who loses the lawsuit have to pay all costs though? Yes, they always pay the costs. Depending upon the claims and laws at issue, the loser may have to pay the attorney fees, too. On August 31 2016 04:16 Plansix wrote:On August 31 2016 04:12 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the one who loses the lawsuit have to pay all costs though? Rarely in the US. It is the exception by a long shot. gonna need someone to put up a source now important to note xdaunt is separating court costs from attorney fees here, when attorney fees can be a big part of the "costs" Court cost vs Attorney fees indeed. So what xDaunt says is that yes, you can bankrupt someone through bogus 0 proof court cases because he still has to get an attorney every time and that is not payed by the losing party. No, filing "bogus 0 proof court cases" will result in the defendant being awarded his attorney fees and costs. Plus, the defendant may have a counterclaim for malicious prosecution, which could get him even more money. And yet we have Trump saying that he can financially ruin people with such claims. So he is yet again lying through his teeth while attempting to strong arm a journalist?
Maybe he just believes he has claims that actually hold water because there are people in the press that shit all over him?
|
United States42685 Posts
On August 31 2016 04:26 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:04 zlefin wrote:On August 31 2016 04:01 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 03:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On August 31 2016 03:54 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 02:10 Slaughter wrote:
Mitch McConnell is such a clown and a disgrace. He usually is, but this time out of sheer self-interest, he's doing the right thing. The American people deserve a referendum to who selects the next justice-legislator. I'm sure you can comfort yourself that Hillary is ahead. I say given Grassley's voting pattern, he'll soon be just as dirty as McConnell if he isn't already. Which was the 2012 election... Which was Sotomayor & Kagan. The confirming senate in those days was freely elected, just as the one not holding a confirmation today. it applies to ALL vacancies that occur during his tenure in office, as you well know. don't troll with unsound counters. It's all informal now, don't cherry pick your extreme literal readings. The senate today was not the senate the confirmed his prior appointments. Senates during Obama did not go 100-0 in confirmations, in fact Kagan's barely cleared consent for the filibuster phase. Now the American people have voted in more Republicans in 2014 to take back the Senate. The Supreme Court for some time now has functioned as a lawmaking organization, and the appointments for life make no sense if this is still a government of the People. However, constitutional forms have not been amended and they are appointed for life. The 2016 election ought to have that responsibility at this moment. It was Biden and the Democrats back in the day that suggested it. I had hoped you'd believe more in bipartisanship, zlefin!
Partizanship would be rejoicing that Hillary gets to pick, surely? I'm not worried that my side is going to lose, quite the opposite, they're probably going to get a more liberal judge than they could have gotten with the election looming over our heads. I just don't think the founders intended an even numbered court for a year because people read the that it's the President's job to nominate and think that somehow means whoever the next President is. Hell, I'm not entirely convinced this would even be happening had Hillary won in 08 and 12, Obama seems to generate a special effort to refuse to follow the normal forms from the opposition.
This is obstructionism, plain and simple. They have the right to refuse to accept a nominee but they're not even holding hearings. There is no constitutional grounds for it.
|
XDaunt is dodging the fact that when both sides pay for their attorneys and costs, regardless of who wins, its called The American Rule.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_rule_(attorney's_fees)
It is the default rule in the US unless statute states otherwise. It is so common, its named after us.
The reverse is called the:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_(attorney's_fees)
So like all law, the answer is "maybe". But more than likely both sides are going to have to pick up the tab for their attorney. In the case of a dismissal due to the case being merit-less, unless a law is in place saying the defendant gets to collect their costs, they are paying out of pocket.
And remember when listening to an attorney that they often leave out information in an effort to further their argument. We paralegals just look shit up and do legal research.
|
p6 nice subtle covering of your terminology issues by moving "costs" after the conjunction
but those wikipedia articles concern only attorneys fees, which xdaunt already referred to as separate entities
|
On August 31 2016 04:30 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:27 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:22 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 04:17 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On August 31 2016 04:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:12 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the one who loses the lawsuit have to pay all costs though? Yes, they always pay the costs. Depending upon the claims and laws at issue, the loser may have to pay the attorney fees, too. On August 31 2016 04:16 Plansix wrote:On August 31 2016 04:12 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the one who loses the lawsuit have to pay all costs though? Rarely in the US. It is the exception by a long shot. gonna need someone to put up a source now important to note xdaunt is separating court costs from attorney fees here, when attorney fees can be a big part of the "costs" Court cost vs Attorney fees indeed. So what xDaunt says is that yes, you can bankrupt someone through bogus 0 proof court cases because he still has to get an attorney every time and that is not payed by the losing party. No, filing "bogus 0 proof court cases" will result in the defendant being awarded his attorney fees and costs. Plus, the defendant may have a counterclaim for malicious prosecution, which could get him even more money. And yet we have Trump saying that he can financially ruin people with such claims. So he is yet again lying through his teeth while attempting to strong arm a journalist?
You're not listening to what I'm saying (or what Trump is saying, for that matter). It all depends upon the quality of the claim that Trump brings. His strategy only works if the claim is sufficiently viable. If he brings suit against someone who says something that is demonstrably false and injurious, then that is a sufficiently viable claim, even if Trump is going to lose on it in the end because he can't prove actual malice.
|
United States42685 Posts
On August 31 2016 04:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +President Obama shortened the prison sentences of 111 inmates Tuesday, including 35 people who had expected to spend the rest of their lives in federal custody, authorities told NPR.
Word of the new batch of clemency grants came as the second-in-command at the Justice Department told NPR that lawyers there have worked through an enormous backlog of drug cases and, despite doubts from prisoner advocates, they will be able to consider each of the thousands of applications from drug criminals before Obama leaves office in 2017.
"At our current pace, we are confident that we will be able to review and make a recommendation to the president on every single drug petition we currently have," Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates said.
The early releases apply to mostly non-violent drug offenders who would have received lighter punishments if they committed the same crimes today. The new commutations mean this White House has granted 673 commutations, more than the past 10 presidents combined. Tuesday's grants follow 214 more earlier this month.
In February the new pardon attorney, Robert Zauzmer, asserted that stacks of petitions would not be left on his table next year. But that had long been in doubt. After the Justice Department and the White House launched the initiative for drug offenders about two years ago, white collar criminals, sex predators and violent criminals sent their applications, too. Those petitions flooded volunteer lawyers and officials in the Office of Pardon Attorney.
The pardon attorney, Deborah Leff, ultimately resigned after raising alarms about insufficient resources to do the job, which she said could "change the lives of a great many deserving people."
Lawyers working for prisoners said there's still a lot more work for the administration to do. Mark Osler, who led an effort by three dozen law professors and advocates to get the White House to pick up the pace, estimated that 1,500 drug prisoners should win commutations based on the administration's criteria. By his math, that means the president has not yet moved on more than half of the inmates who should win shorter sentences. Source
I really, really like lame duck Obama. It's such a pity the Texas national guard stopped him taking over. Now he doesn't have elections to fight and the other branches of government have just taken their ball and gone home he can just sit in his office and focus on doing the maximum good with the powers he has been given by the constitution. Fixing that overtime shit, fixing bogus investment and retirement schemes, expanding protected environmental zones and now pardoning non violent drug offenders. 4 more years imo.
|
On August 31 2016 04:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:30 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 04:27 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:22 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 04:17 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On August 31 2016 04:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:12 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the one who loses the lawsuit have to pay all costs though? Yes, they always pay the costs. Depending upon the claims and laws at issue, the loser may have to pay the attorney fees, too. On August 31 2016 04:16 Plansix wrote:On August 31 2016 04:12 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the one who loses the lawsuit have to pay all costs though? Rarely in the US. It is the exception by a long shot. gonna need someone to put up a source now important to note xdaunt is separating court costs from attorney fees here, when attorney fees can be a big part of the "costs" Court cost vs Attorney fees indeed. So what xDaunt says is that yes, you can bankrupt someone through bogus 0 proof court cases because he still has to get an attorney every time and that is not payed by the losing party. No, filing "bogus 0 proof court cases" will result in the defendant being awarded his attorney fees and costs. Plus, the defendant may have a counterclaim for malicious prosecution, which could get him even more money. And yet we have Trump saying that he can financially ruin people with such claims. So he is yet again lying through his teeth while attempting to strong arm a journalist? You're not listening to what I'm saying (or what Trump is saying, for that matter). It all depends upon the quality of the claim that Trump brings. His strategy only works if the claim is sufficiently viable. If he brings suit against someone who says something that is demonstrably false and injurious, then that is a sufficiently viable claim, even if Trump is going to lose on it in the end because he can't prove actual malice.
Do yes he can bankrupt journalists if they something naughty about him regardless of merit.
Thank you for the answer. We got there eventually.
|
On August 31 2016 04:34 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
p6 nice subtle covering of your terminology issues by moving "costs" after the conjunction
but those wikipedia articles concern only attorneys fees, which xdaunt already referred to as separate entities
Which very wildly from case to case. Many cases we appear on have very low costs, but high fees do to the court requiring numerous appearances. If you have a lot of depositions or need for expert witnesses, the costs will be higher. But you are still paying our attorney's fees.
The most important part of this discussion is Xdaunt knows exactly how much Trump could cost a publication that they have a very limited hope of ever recouping from him. He is just avoiding that part of the discussion.
|
United States42685 Posts
On August 31 2016 04:38 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:30 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 04:27 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:22 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 04:17 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On August 31 2016 04:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:12 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the one who loses the lawsuit have to pay all costs though? Yes, they always pay the costs. Depending upon the claims and laws at issue, the loser may have to pay the attorney fees, too. On August 31 2016 04:16 Plansix wrote:On August 31 2016 04:12 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the one who loses the lawsuit have to pay all costs though? Rarely in the US. It is the exception by a long shot. gonna need someone to put up a source now important to note xdaunt is separating court costs from attorney fees here, when attorney fees can be a big part of the "costs" Court cost vs Attorney fees indeed. So what xDaunt says is that yes, you can bankrupt someone through bogus 0 proof court cases because he still has to get an attorney every time and that is not payed by the losing party. No, filing "bogus 0 proof court cases" will result in the defendant being awarded his attorney fees and costs. Plus, the defendant may have a counterclaim for malicious prosecution, which could get him even more money. And yet we have Trump saying that he can financially ruin people with such claims. So he is yet again lying through his teeth while attempting to strong arm a journalist? You're not listening to what I'm saying (or what Trump is saying, for that matter). It all depends upon the quality of the claim that Trump brings. His strategy only works if the claim is sufficiently viable. If he brings suit against someone who says something that is demonstrably false and injurious, then that is a sufficiently viable claim, even if Trump is going to lose on it in the end because he can't prove actual malice. Do yes he can bankrupt journalists if they something naughty about him regardless of merit. Thank you for the answer. We got there eventually.
The absurd thing being that the conclusion was also the starting premise that was said by Trump.
|
On August 31 2016 04:34 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
p6 nice subtle covering of your terminology issues by moving "costs" after the conjunction
but those wikipedia articles concern only attorneys fees, which xdaunt already referred to as separate entities
Correct, the American and English Rules are inapplicable to the issue of costs.
Let me make this a bit easier for y'all to understand. I practice in Colorado, so Colorado law applies to the claims that I bring in Colorado. The award of costs to the victor is statutorily codified. Here are the two main statutes:
§ 13-16-104. When plaintiff recovers costs
If any person sues in any court of this state in any action, real, personal, or mixed, or upon any statute for any offense or wrong immediately personal to the plaintiff and recovers any debt or damages in such action, then the plaintiff or demandant shall have judgment to recover against the defendant his costs to be taxed; and the same shall be recovered, together with the debt or damages, by execution, except in the cases mentioned in this article.
§ 13-16-105. When defendant recovers costs
If any person sues in any court of record in this state in any action wherein the plaintiff or demandant might have costs in case judgment is given for him and he is nonprossed, suffers a discontinuance, is nonsuited after appearance of the defendant, or a verdict is passed against him, then the defendant shall have judgment to recover his costs against the plaintiff, except against executors or administrators prosecuting in the right of their testator or intestate, or demandant, to be taxed; and the same shall be recovered of the plaintiff or demandant, by like process as the plaintiff or demandant might have had against the defendant, in case judgment has been given for the plaintiff or demandant.
Now, Colorado also allows awards of costs in other situations, and there are other statutes that address those specific situations. There are also other statutes that dictate what specific costs are recoverable and which are not. This gets complicated very fast. Each state is going to have a very similar scheme. So do the federal courts. This is why I can't provide "a source" for the rule. Each jurisdiction and court is going to draw upon a different authority.
|
On August 31 2016 04:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:38 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 04:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:30 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 04:27 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:22 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 04:17 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On August 31 2016 04:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:12 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the one who loses the lawsuit have to pay all costs though? Yes, they always pay the costs. Depending upon the claims and laws at issue, the loser may have to pay the attorney fees, too. On August 31 2016 04:16 Plansix wrote:On August 31 2016 04:12 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the one who loses the lawsuit have to pay all costs though? Rarely in the US. It is the exception by a long shot. gonna need someone to put up a source now important to note xdaunt is separating court costs from attorney fees here, when attorney fees can be a big part of the "costs" Court cost vs Attorney fees indeed. So what xDaunt says is that yes, you can bankrupt someone through bogus 0 proof court cases because he still has to get an attorney every time and that is not payed by the losing party. No, filing "bogus 0 proof court cases" will result in the defendant being awarded his attorney fees and costs. Plus, the defendant may have a counterclaim for malicious prosecution, which could get him even more money. And yet we have Trump saying that he can financially ruin people with such claims. So he is yet again lying through his teeth while attempting to strong arm a journalist? You're not listening to what I'm saying (or what Trump is saying, for that matter). It all depends upon the quality of the claim that Trump brings. His strategy only works if the claim is sufficiently viable. If he brings suit against someone who says something that is demonstrably false and injurious, then that is a sufficiently viable claim, even if Trump is going to lose on it in the end because he can't prove actual malice. Do yes he can bankrupt journalists if they something naughty about him regardless of merit. Thank you for the answer. We got there eventually. The absurd thing being that the conclusion was also the starting premise that was said by Trump.
Never expect a lawyer to give you a strait answer when he does not like said answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
