4 ms·
One of the reasons that courts do not allow cases to continue when a party loses interest in the dispute (for whatever reason) is that the court can no longer t
by nickff 11y ago
One of the reasons that courts do not allow cases to continue when a party loses interest in the dispute (for whatever reason) is that the court can no longer trust that party to continue making a forceful case. You can end up with situations where the party refuses to spend money on making good arguments and finding evidence, then make very bad precedent because of it.
- curryhowardiso 11y agoYes, absolutely - and another reason is that it forms a sort of "de facto precedent". Even though there isn't a USSC judgment, in future people will (hopefully) refer to "the time the DoJ tried to do X" and the theory is this is citation enough.
- fergbrain 11y agoThis was District Court, not SCOTUS.
- curryhowardiso 11y agoYes, which is why I said "despite not having a SC precedent"?
- geggam 11y agoI lost interest in a speeding ticket case.... guess what happened ?
- geggam 11y agoReally ... a down vote for humor ? ... y'all need to get the stick out of your ass
- ww520 11y agoIt's a valid argument.
- chii 11y agoCriminal cases are not precedent based are they? This whole thread is about civil suits.
- geggam 11y agoSpeeding can be civil or criminal based on the speed in relation to the posted limits or other parameters... Example Arizona Most cases of minor speeding are civil speeding violations. However, criminal speeding tickets can be issued in these common cases: When a driver exceeds 85 mph anywhere in the state When a driver exceeds 35 mph while near a school crossing When a driver exceeds a posted speed limit by 20 mph in a business or residential area When a driver exceeds 45 mph when no speed is posted in a business or residential area
- lucb1e 11y agoThat's actually a good point, setting precedent by one side not being represented properly. Thinking further, one company could easily setup another and sue it for one thing or another. The set-up company presents a believable but purposefully flawed case and voilà: legal precedent.
- nickff 11y agoSome have made the argument that certain government agencies are participating in this sort of sham arrangement, under the guise of 'consent decrees' where an interest group sues an agency, and 'forces' the agency to assume a new (or expanded) power. This is a contentious issue (as you might have imagined).
- ohitsdom 11y ago> one company could easily setup another This could happen in our current system. For example, if the DoJ in Apple had a side agreement that Apple would lose the encryption case. Obviously that's not what happened, but your conspiracy scenario isn't any more likely if courts forced a case to continue.
- imh 11y agoThat seems like a massive failing of our legal system when one party "refusing to spend money on making good arguments and finding evidence" can lead to bad legal precedents. Money should be irrelevant to it, especially because most parties can't afford to spend that money. But back in reality, you're absolutely right :(
- roel_v 11y agoPlease describe a plausible construct how your proposed concept could work.