3 ms·

> words fail me Why? As you state, this was a motion for summary judgement, not a trial. The burden of proof for summary judgement is higher than for a civil

> words fail me Why? As you state, this was a motion for summary judgement, not a trial. The burden of proof for summary judgement is higher than for a civil suit trial. [1][2] While the information presented in this article raised disturbing questions and the family involved appears to have been subjected to unreasonable search based on faulty testing, the article is light on details for why the judge rejected the request for summary judgement. Has anyone found a link to the judgement? I hope the family continue to push their case - it appears the were a victim of 'war on drugs theatre'. [1] Burden of proof for summary judgement: The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court should state on the record the reasons for granting or denying the motion. In civil cases, the plaintiff has the burden of proving his case by a preponderance of the evidence. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_56 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_56 [2] Burden of proof for civil cases: In civil cases, the plaintiff has the burden of proving his case by a preponderance of the evidence. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/burden_of_proof https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/burden_of_proof

jessaustin 11y ago
I hope the family continue to push their case... How can they do that? TFA clearly describes judgement in favor of the defendants' (i.e. the cops) summary motion to dismiss all elements of the suit completely. Read TFA more closely, please. [EDIT:] The comment to which I reply seems to misunderstand TFA to have referred to a summary motion by the plaintiffs, which is not the case. If appealing to a higher court rather than just getting the fair trial to which one is entitled seems like a trivial thing, then one must be either fabulously wealthy, or an attorney. We're certainly out of the $25k range mentioned in TFA.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > How can they do that? By appealing to the appropriate US Court of Appeals. > TFA clearly describes judgement in favor of the defendants' (i.e. the cops) summary motion to dismiss all elements of the suit completely. Such a judgment does not prevent an appeal. (Indeed, a final judgment of this type may be necessary for an appeal to be ripe.) > Read TFA more closely, please. Good advice for you to follow. Note the last sentence (also, paragraph) of the article: "The Hartes’s attorney recently told KMBC that they will likely appeal Lungstrum’s decision."

jessaustin 11y ago

I hope the family continue to push their case... How can they do that? TFA clearly describes judgement in favor of the defendants' (i.e. the cops) summary motion to dismiss all elements of the suit completely. Read TFA more closely, please. [EDIT:] The comment to which I reply seems to misunderstand TFA to have referred to a summary motion by the plaintiffs, which is not the case. If appealing to a higher court rather than just getting the fair trial to which one is entitled seems like a trivial thing, then one must be either fabulously wealthy, or an attorney. We're certainly out of the $25k range mentioned in TFA.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> How can they do that? By appealing to the appropriate US Court of Appeals. > TFA clearly describes judgement in favor of the defendants' (i.e. the cops) summary motion to dismiss all elements of the suit completely. Such a judgment does not prevent an appeal. (Indeed, a final judgment of this type may be necessary for an appeal to be ripe.) > Read TFA more closely, please. Good advice for you to follow. Note the last sentence (also, paragraph) of the article: "The Hartes’s attorney recently told KMBC that they will likely appeal Lungstrum’s decision."