5 ms·

> The problem is that it seems that the judge made the legally correct determination, Judges are supposed to use some digression. I doubt very much that the l

by adekok 10y ago

> The problem is that it seems that the judge made the legally correct determination, Judges are supposed to use some digression. I doubt very much that the litigants losses for a $40 printer are $30K. Especially since he conveniently lost the printer. I just don't believe that there are any laws which require the judge to (a) decide in the litigants favor with zero supporting evidence, and (b) allow $30K in damages for a $40 printer. FTA, the court of appeals pretty much stated the above The $30,000 in damages "had no basis in reality," Chief Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote. I'm left wondering why anyone supports a position which the judges describe as having no basis in reality.

pklausler 10y ago
suggested edit: s/digression/discretion/
sgustard 10y ago
As quoted, "Edens acknowledged the amount is "seemingly high" and the judgment "may seem extreme for the breach of contract for the purchase of a printer." But he wrote that he's constrained by how the Supreme Court had previously interpreted a state trial rule, called Rule 36, which sets the 30-day deadline for responding to requests for admissions."
- TrickzOnU 10y ago
  Arent such notices supposed to be handed in person via a process server? How could the person be held liable for a default judgement without being personally handed court documents?
SolarNet 10y ago
> Judges are supposed to use some digression. Yes, and they do, however sometimes their hands are tied. In this case by rule 36 of a series of peer approved rules which states what action the judge in this case has to take. When submitted to appeal the judges who passed the rules then said the ruling "had no basis in reality" about their own rules, hopefully they will fix them and/or future judges will use this as precedent to in cases like this. This part of the system is functioning correctly, it's the ridiculous litigation from pro-se plaintiffs that's at fault. Most jurisdictions have an equivalent to spam filter that passes down criminal charges on people who act like this.

by adekok 10y ago

pklausler 10y ago

suggested edit: s/digression/discretion/

sgustard 10y ago

As quoted, "Edens acknowledged the amount is "seemingly high" and the judgment "may seem extreme for the breach of contract for the purchase of a printer." But he wrote that he's constrained by how the Supreme Court had previously interpreted a state trial rule, called Rule 36, which sets the 30-day deadline for responding to requests for admissions."

TrickzOnU 10y ago
Arent such notices supposed to be handed in person via a process server? How could the person be held liable for a default judgement without being personally handed court documents?

SolarNet 10y ago

> Judges are supposed to use some digression. Yes, and they do, however sometimes their hands are tied. In this case by rule 36 of a series of peer approved rules which states what action the judge in this case has to take. When submitted to appeal the judges who passed the rules then said the ruling "had no basis in reality" about their own rules, hopefully they will fix them and/or future judges will use this as precedent to in cases like this. This part of the system is functioning correctly, it's the ridiculous litigation from pro-se plaintiffs that's at fault. Most jurisdictions have an equivalent to spam filter that passes down criminal charges on people who act like this.