Term
|
Definition
contingent upon "us" winning
30-40% of what you are awarded goes to lawyer - this percentage is typically enough so thhat you don't have to use an out of pocket fee
pro: lets more common people trying a civil case to have lawyers
con: lawyers only will take cases with potentially large sums and cases they believe will win |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| makes industries uncompetitive |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
ranges from fender benders to mill $ lawsuits against companies like pfizer
contracts
domestic relations
the HAVES come out ahead |
|
|
Term
| repeat players - why do they consistently do SO much better? |
|
Definition
- experience. in court OFTEN.
-examples: landlords, insurance companies
-they are interested in the LONG TERM.
-have money time and resources to secure documents and set own precedents
-prepare own documents --> documents obviously favor the person who compiled it
- have a different agenda than one timers |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-the little guy
-care only about THIS case. this will probably be the only case they ever take to court
-only want justice for THIS case, you don't really care about the actual LAW |
|
|
Term
| deciding factor for lawyers in trying civil cases.. |
|
Definition
is it WORTH $$$ IT
who are we going after? how deep are their pockets? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
in criminal cases, the state (prosecution) has burden of proof
in civil cases, the plaintiff has burden of proof
burden of proof: must prove through credible evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt that the person in question did commit the act |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| this notifies the defendent of what he/she is being sued for. the defendent is "Served" by a third party |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
purpose is to be a third party and a witness to tesitfy that the defendent was served and cant not show up and then say "But i had no idea..."
in US you cannot have a case without a summons or without he party knowing theyre being sued |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| defendent doesnt show up and the summons is on record. this failure to appear can result in plaintiff awarded FULL AMOUNT of what theyre sueing for |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| issued to the court and the court clerk. plaintiff letting state know there's a problem and they're sueing someone. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| given to defendent or person charged |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| "moving the court" making sure cases move through the docket |
|
|
Term
| 1950s view on pretrial discovery |
|
Definition
| fablous! revolutionized american litigation to soften and individualize the process |
|
|
Term
| 1970s 1980s view of pretrial discovery |
|
Definition
| almost every complaint about civil law stems from pretrial discovery |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
OBJECTION
a third party reporting on conversation with two other parties
-this is difficult/impossinle to cross-examine
-how can 3rd party know exactly what was meant?
-would this even help at trial?> you want to put your best evidence forward and this would not look reliable to a jury |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
"judgement not withstanding the verdict"
there's no credible evidence a jury could have used |
|
|
Term
| class action fairness act 2005 |
|
Definition
example of litigation explosion
brought class action suits of greater than 5 mill under federal jurisdiction and grealty scrutinized used of coupons
takes power away from group of plaintiffs
pass by bush, supported by every single republican
-greater scrutinity of lawyers fees
-eliminates forum shopping aka madison county il |
|
|
Term
ADR
alternative dispute resolution |
|
Definition
advesary process not the best way to settle class-actions
-seen as any dispute settled without going to trial
-offer non-binding opininon by a third party who decides what the outcome of a case would be should the case go to trail. the third-party fee is split between the people in question |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-group of jurors didn't reflect a cross-section of the community
-knowingly a biased or prejduced juror was allowed to sit on the jury
-officer summonung the jury has acted corruptly. issued in writing
-dont really see this anymore |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
answers given by potential juror during voir doire say that juror cannot sit in on this case
-judge reviews this. if he agrees they are excused
-juror response makes it so they "can't" hear the case
-there's an unlimited number of these, so you always try for this first |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
each side gets a certain amount of these... the more intense the case, the higher the amount of challenges
-CONTROVERSIAL
-you don't need any reason at all to remove these people
-mainly used for discrimination purposes (thought illegal) and for tactical purposes |
|
|
Term
| 1986 - preemporty challenge change |
|
Definition
| can't discriminate on basis of race |
|
|
Term
| 1996 - preemporty challenge |
|
Definition
| gender is outlawed; can't excuse juror just on basis that they are male or female |
|
|
Term
| cross-section guarantee.. |
|
Definition
NOT guaranteed that actual jury you get is a cross-section of the community at large
ARE GUARANTEED that the master list of potential jurors IS a cross-section of community at large
ARE guaranteed that choosing jurors from this pool is random |
|
|
Term
| jury selection: a science |
|
Definition
| this started during 1972 with ant-war efforts |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
witheld documents and lied to court
-the lawyers knew about these withheld documents, which were subpeoneaed by plaintiff, and the judge charged the lawyers and called this a cover - up.
-s |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| define but don't mandate acceptable lawyer behavior |
|
|
