Reply With Quote
So is there such thing as a captive audience at a funeral?
the church?
So is there such thing as a captive audience at a funeral?
By that definition I suppose so, but that is hardly conclusive here. Apparently it didn't outweigh the First Amendment issue.
so if the sc, who I think already said they would hear the case, overturns - you would consider that judicial activism?
Based on the facts we have here, and based on this definition, these Westboro freaks did not capture the audience with their information.
If anything, the First Amendment was created to protect freedom of religion, which is CERTAINLY covered by what these people are doing.
Personally, I'm the opposite. I think if you have the money to buy a tank, and wish to, go ahead. I'd limit nukes, big bombs, fighter planes, and anything that can cause massive destruction in a short amount of time. Other than that, regulation for "big-ticket" items would work for me. Yes, I know I'm in the extreme in this view.
I think you're misreading the phrase. According to the definition posted (and I don't know whether that's the "legal" definition), a captive audience is one that is gathered for a purpose and then introduced to other information, ostensibly against their will, I'm assuming.
Given that the protestors could theoretically protest at the funeral no matter when the funeral was, I would say that there's a good possibility they could be considered a "captive audience", but as WH said, the First Amendment rights trumped that in this case.
There goes the neigborhood.Personally, I'm the opposite. I think if you have the money to buy a tank, and wish to, go ahead. I'd limit nukes, big bombs, fighter planes, and anything that can cause massive destruction in a short amount of time. Other than that, regulation for "big-ticket" items would work for me. Yes, I know I'm in the extreme in this view.
Heh...that's what I was thinking of.
I'm having a difficult time fighting past the bra-less Jenilee Harrison.
I'd like to know how snc made the determination that this was a captive audience according to his definition.
LOL...I'm having a difficult time fighting past the bra-less Jenilee Harrison.
A little uncommon for a 1984 movie, isn't it?
I don't think that the Court improperly ruled with respect to the First Amendment, though I expect the SC to overturn the ruling. However, I do think that the Court erred in granting attorney's fees as this is discretionary. Having tried to scan through the opinion, I do not see where the Court actually awards the fees. Usually it would be in the decision. Can anyone point me to where the Court awards the fees?
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/qp/09-00751qp.pdf
This gives us a few of the issues that the Supreme Court will review and answer.
I would be mildly surprised if the SC overturns this ruling.
Usually the defendant has to make the counter claim for damages, in this case it was for attorney's fees.However, I do think that the Court erred in granting attorney's fees as this is discretionary. Having tried to scan through the opinion, I do not see where the Court actually awards the fees. Usually it would be in the decision. Can anyone point me to where the Court awards the fees?
What exactly are you asking to be pointed to.....court awarded fees in general or what the court awarded the defendant in this case?
Its still a conservative court, and the Pe ioner met his burden of proof at trial. I could very easily see this overturned.
Usually, part of the opinion will address the grounds for granting anything. i.e. attorney fees. I want to see specifically why they granted attorney's fees...an explaination. What was their basis and under what authority they reached the determination to do so. I understand that attorney fees are discretionary. In most jursidictions you cant just be awarded attorneys fees in the average suit. Usually a statute has to provide for attorneys fees or a contract can provide for it.
Lets say I sue you for negligence because you hit me with your car. Lets presume that the car you drive is your own car and that you were not using it for work purposes. If I prevail, in most jurisductions I cannot ask for attorney fees based on this alone.
Now, lets say you appeal because of juror misconduct. A member of the jury went to your house and said, damn, Blake is rich as , he can afford to pay this, besides, its his insurance paying the bill. You appeal and win...most courts would not grant attorney fees under this scenario.
Skip the juror misconduct, you appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction and win, most courts will not grant attorneys fees based on this alone.
This is what I am asking, under what authority (case law, statute, contract) did they decide to award attorneys fees. Was something filed out-of-time, was there some form of contempt, etc...?
I figure mild registration and background checks could be required for bigger items. Let's face it, if you want to purchase a tank, then you're probably not Mr. Smith from down the block. And in order to sell the tank, you would probably need to only be able to sell it to people who have passed a background check themselves.There goes the neigborhood.
(Before everyone starts complaining about additional taxes, I envision said background check as one paid for by the individual in order to acquire such an object. This would be performed by a reputable source, as determined by the government. Would that introduce corruption? Possibly. But at least people would be able to get their tanks!
If the burden of proof was sufficiently met, then why was this overturned in appellate court?
I understand all that. Just didn't know exactly what you were asking.Usually, part of the opinion will address the grounds for granting anything. i.e. attorney fees. I want to see specifically why they granted attorney's fees...an explaination. What was their basis and under what authority they reached the determination to do so. I understand that attorney fees are discretionary. In most jursidictions you cant just be awarded attorneys fees in the average suit. Usually a statute has to provide for attorneys fees or a contract can provide for it.
Lets say I sue you for negligence because you hit me with your car. Lets presume that the car you drive is your own car and that you were not using it for work purposes. If I prevail, in most jurisductions I cannot ask for attorney fees based on this alone.
Now, lets say you appeal because of juror misconduct. A member of the jury went to your house and said, damn, Blake is rich as , he can afford to pay this, besides, its his insurance paying the bill. You appeal and win...most courts would not grant attorney fees under this scenario.
Skip the juror misconduct, you appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction and win, most courts will not grant attorneys fees based on this alone.
This is what I am asking, under what authority (case law, statute, contract) did they decide to award attorneys fees. Was something filed out-of-time, was there some form of contempt, etc...?
I can't seem to find it myself.....this is the closest I have found:
......Church members are seeking to recoup costs from federal appeals court, which dismissed Snyder's lawsuit against them. Snyder's lawyer, Sean Summers, said the court declared last week that Snyder was responsible for the costs.
Efforts to reach an official from Westboro Baptist Church were unsuccessful Monday.
Such mandated reimbursements are common after appellate court cases, Summers said......
....Philadelphia lawyer Howard Bashman, an expert in appellate law, said that the loser in appellate court cases typically compensate the winner for court costs. Those costs tend to be higher when the plaintiffs win, because they must supply a complete copy of the original court case.
The winners may decide not to go after that compensation, frequently because the legal costs involved in pursuing the funds would be more than the money they could recoup, Bashman said.
Summers said the federal appellate court rejected arguments that Snyder should not be assessed $16,500 in legal fees because he doesn't have the means to pay them.
http://www.military.com/news/article...ourt-fees.html
The Court overturned the case essentially based on a review that the TC allowed the finder of fact (Jury) to decide questions of law that the TC should have reviewed. In other words, the defense of the First Amendment rights to free speech should have been ruled on by the TC and not gone to the jury. That is sort of a simple explaination, it is a little more complicated.
I have seen plenty of news articles, but I disagree with the one that you cited where they said appellate costs are common. I have handled probably 250 cases in federal courts, only about 20 have gone to trial and of all the cases only 8 have been appealed. I have won 7 and lost 1 and never once was I awarded attorneys fees or had the opposing party awarded attorneys fees without a contract mandating attoreys fees.
I can tell you at the state level, where I have handled about 100 appeals, never once have i seen attorneys fees handed out without a contract or a specific state SC rule or statute.
Granted, there might be other attorneys who have had the complete opposite experience. I can only speak for my limited experience. I have always considered myself an ok lawyer.
eh, it could be a close call..
I'll go with the ruling getting upheld 6-3.
I'm curious myself......Sounds like it could depend on the state. Apparently it's common in Maryland and Pennsylvania. I may make a phone call or two and see what I can find.I have seen plenty of news articles, but I disagree with the one that you cited where they said appellate costs are common. I have handled probably 250 cases in federal courts, only about 20 have gone to trial and of all the cases only 8 have been appealed. I have won 7 and lost 1 and never once was I awarded attorneys fees or had the opposing party awarded attorneys fees without a contract mandating attoreys fees.
I can tell you at the state level, where I have handled about 100 appeals, never once have i seen attorneys fees handed out without a contract or a specific state SC rule or statute.
Granted, there might be other attorneys who have had the complete opposite experience. I can only speak for my limited experience. I have always considered myself an ok lawyer.
this is random.....I don't watch a lot of Peoples court, but for some reason, this one stuck with me where the guy sued for damages and court costs, and the judge awarded him both.......she even commented.."I wonder why more people haven't added court costs in with their complaints"
ROFL...is that a M-46 Patton in your driveway or are you just happy to see me?I figure mild registration and background checks could be required for bigger items. Let's face it, if you want to purchase a tank, then you're probably not Mr. Smith from down the block. And in order to sell the tank, you would probably need to only be able to sell it to people who have passed a background check themselves.
(Before everyone starts complaining about additional taxes, I envision said background check as one paid for by the individual in order to acquire such an object. This would be performed by a reputable source, as determined by the government. Would that introduce corruption? Possibly. But at least people would be able to get their tanks!
If the plaintiff wins, they usually always get court costs. But that is a few hundred dollars, court filing fee + service fees.
People's court don't use attorneys.
I know....but it's the priniciple. From what I can tell, in many cases the money in legal fees is not worth the effort at times to try to collect.
I called a clerk over at the 4th CoA. She basically said what you said. It still just appears to be a regional thing.
I'll put up my Spurstalk cash that it gets overturned. Not that I have ever seen any of the cash nor would I actually know how to transfer it to you.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions