don't agree with murder? fine don't murder*. But leave me to do murder if I want, right? It's not as simple as judge what you want as long as it doesn't affect me. Brain or no brain.
*I am NOT equating abortion with murder. at least here.
Yes! Defend our freedom of free-speech by attacking their freedom of enterprise!
Let them exploit the stupid/weak/miserable/bored. Just don't give them tax-exempt status.
Ignoring science greatly affects just how long/well we live. I haven't yet found a problem with ignoring spirituality. None that beer doesn't solve, anyway.
He agreed not to sue the city, but he should still file a complaint with the attorney ethics board/grievance committee against the prosecutor. The prosecutor should be reprimanded/suspended from the bar for strong-arming a man she knew committed no crime.
"Beam me up, Scotty" is never actually said in any of the eps. The nearest equivalent words are 'Beam us up, Mr Scott'[in the episode "Gamesters of Triskelion"].
Nope. There is no cause of action for discrimination by a private citizen. Now if they were actually cops, then citizens could sue them through the civil rights statutes (section 1983 etc.). Impersonating an officer..THAT's where they should hit 'em.
Did anyone notice that the current leader, rlcsljo, is REALLY into dirty movies? Not that we all aren't, but it was just kinda funny for some stupid stupid reason.
You can make an analogy to what I did with one client that needed me to figure a way to perfect his security interest in software:
The secured party (bank/your client) takes it from distributor (you), they register it with copyright/patent office (giving them the rights), but then they enter into an agreement with distributor (you) saying that they will exclusively license it to that distributor(you) while the distributor (you) is making payments (or finishing their part of the deal), and then they assign the patent/copyright back to the distributor(yep, you) once loan is paid off or the project is finished or you fulill whatever your role as a pseudo debtor is, in this case finishing the project. Of course, if you don't live up to your end you get screwed out of your software since they will be the ones registering it, and you'd have to be careful how you draft the licensing agreement to make sure you are the exclusive licensee.
Some things to consider:
In Parklane Hosiery (case), the Supreme Court allowed plaintiff stockholders to offensively employ a adverse judgment against defendant in an SEC action because it seemed reasonable in the particular circumstances. Parklane suggests that offensive collateral estoppel should be permitted a case-by-case basis:
Was plaintiff's action foreseeable?
Could the plaintiff have joined the prior action?
Did defendant have incentive to litigate vigorously?
Did defendant have chance to pick the forum?
Will allowing offensive collateral estoppel encourage other plaintiffs to adopt a wait and see attitude?
Is there a risk of a multiple plaintiff anomaly?
Does the latter forum provide defendant more procedural protection and a greater opportunity to litigate?
Be might not have to prove monopoly, but we can't assume that sionce they would be using collateral estoppel offensively...
Whoa there.....not so fast. You are making HUGE assumptions regarding Collateral Estoppel.
Where a court has already rejected a plaintiff's claim, a new defendant may raise the prior judgment as a defense against plaintiff. That much is accepted.
MUCH MUCH More controversial is a plaintiff's attempt to capitalize on a defendant's loss....i.e. Be capitalizing on the prior litigation that declared Microsoft a monopoly.
Think about it....Microsoft is not going to be condemned as a monopoly for purposes of every future lawsuit....that would violate some serious Due Process.
I forgot to say that the judge here did not mention the issue of prejudice in the opinion so 41(b) is invoked (or would be if Plaintiff sought a new trial on the same claim):)
A small point. The Plaintiff is not barred from bringing suit again. This is not simply because the decision was not based on the merits. Under Rule 41(b) of FRCP, if the federal court does not specifiy dismissal with/without prejudice, prejudice will be assumed, invoking res judicata and barring future suit. There are three exceptions to 41(b) where prejudice will not not be presumed, however, and Lack of Jurisdiciton happens to be one of those. THe ends are the same, but you can't say just because a case was decided on procedure the issues will not be barred in future suits.
You cannot just assume, however, that because the ruling was not on the merits it will not be treated with prejudice. The court was silent. It was because it was dismissed for jurisdicitonal issues that there is no preclusion of future suit...and simply because the ruling was not on the merits...
go Civ Pro! Oh man, I'm a loser...
Ah yes. If the federal court forgets to say something about prejudice (with or without) then the default rule will be with prejudice except for 3 enumerated exceptions in 41(b), one of which is lack of jurisdiction....so I guess no res judicata.
Slashdot Mirror
a barn swallow, yes, but an African swallow...
calling atheism a religion is a lot like calling NOT collecting stamps a hobby.
otherwise it'd be from Big Blue to one Big BSOD.
don't agree with murder? fine don't murder*. But leave me to do murder if I want, right? It's not as simple as judge what you want as long as it doesn't affect me. Brain or no brain. *I am NOT equating abortion with murder. at least here.
Yes! Defend our freedom of free-speech by attacking their freedom of enterprise! Let them exploit the stupid/weak/miserable/bored. Just don't give them tax-exempt status.
Ignoring science greatly affects just how long/well we live. I haven't yet found a problem with ignoring spirituality. None that beer doesn't solve, anyway.
He agreed not to sue the city, but he should still file a complaint with the attorney ethics board/grievance committee against the prosecutor. The prosecutor should be reprimanded/suspended from the bar for strong-arming a man she knew committed no crime.
if by "cheap" you mean "free". As for your statistics comment and myself having no comment, I defer to a wise man:
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. ~Benjamin Disraeli
You mean there's *porn* on the internet? How long has this been going on and why was I not informed!?!
"Beam me up, Scotty" is never actually said in any of the eps. The nearest equivalent words are 'Beam us up, Mr Scott'[in the episode "Gamesters of Triskelion"].
"Damaged blood vessels and tissues can then be repaired via surgery." I think this means gunshot wounds etc.
well, if they market them as "Go out and kill people now!" devices, then maybe.
all your base are belong to us! yeah!
Nope. There is no cause of action for discrimination by a private citizen. Now if they were actually cops, then citizens could sue them through the civil rights statutes (section 1983 etc.). Impersonating an officer..THAT's where they should hit 'em.
Except that there were no "crimes" involved here...
Did anyone notice that the current leader, rlcsljo, is REALLY into dirty movies? Not that we all aren't, but it was just kinda funny for some stupid stupid reason.
yeah, and poop costs less than a strip steak. I'd still rather eat the strip steak...
You can make an analogy to what I did with one client that needed me to figure a way to perfect his security interest in software: The secured party (bank/your client) takes it from distributor (you), they register it with copyright/patent office (giving them the rights), but then they enter into an agreement with distributor (you) saying that they will exclusively license it to that distributor(you) while the distributor (you) is making payments (or finishing their part of the deal), and then they assign the patent/copyright back to the distributor(yep, you) once loan is paid off or the project is finished or you fulill whatever your role as a pseudo debtor is, in this case finishing the project. Of course, if you don't live up to your end you get screwed out of your software since they will be the ones registering it, and you'd have to be careful how you draft the licensing agreement to make sure you are the exclusive licensee.
So, um, in your "rants"....why do you assume all /. readers are "pasty-white"?
Black men are not smart enough for cumputers???
Some things to consider: In Parklane Hosiery (case), the Supreme Court allowed plaintiff stockholders to offensively employ a adverse judgment against defendant in an SEC action because it seemed reasonable in the particular circumstances. Parklane suggests that offensive collateral estoppel should be permitted a case-by-case basis: Was plaintiff's action foreseeable? Could the plaintiff have joined the prior action? Did defendant have incentive to litigate vigorously? Did defendant have chance to pick the forum? Will allowing offensive collateral estoppel encourage other plaintiffs to adopt a wait and see attitude? Is there a risk of a multiple plaintiff anomaly? Does the latter forum provide defendant more procedural protection and a greater opportunity to litigate? Be might not have to prove monopoly, but we can't assume that sionce they would be using collateral estoppel offensively...
Whoa there.....not so fast. You are making HUGE assumptions regarding Collateral Estoppel. Where a court has already rejected a plaintiff's claim, a new defendant may raise the prior judgment as a defense against plaintiff. That much is accepted. MUCH MUCH More controversial is a plaintiff's attempt to capitalize on a defendant's loss....i.e. Be capitalizing on the prior litigation that declared Microsoft a monopoly. Think about it....Microsoft is not going to be condemned as a monopoly for purposes of every future lawsuit....that would violate some serious Due Process.
I forgot to say that the judge here did not mention the issue of prejudice in the opinion so 41(b) is invoked (or would be if Plaintiff sought a new trial on the same claim) :)
A small point. The Plaintiff is not barred from bringing suit again. This is not simply because the decision was not based on the merits. Under Rule 41(b) of FRCP, if the federal court does not specifiy dismissal with/without prejudice, prejudice will be assumed, invoking res judicata and barring future suit. There are three exceptions to 41(b) where prejudice will not not be presumed, however, and Lack of Jurisdiciton happens to be one of those. THe ends are the same, but you can't say just because a case was decided on procedure the issues will not be barred in future suits.
You cannot just assume, however, that because the ruling was not on the merits it will not be treated with prejudice. The court was silent. It was because it was dismissed for jurisdicitonal issues that there is no preclusion of future suit...and simply because the ruling was not on the merits... go Civ Pro! Oh man, I'm a loser...
Ah yes. If the federal court forgets to say something about prejudice (with or without) then the default rule will be with prejudice except for 3 enumerated exceptions in 41(b), one of which is lack of jurisdiction....so I guess no res judicata.