US supreme court rules on tuna can case

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: amdfanboy

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: amdfanboy

Originally posted by: Quasmo
This is the reason I want to be a judge. I would throw people out of court left and right... Asinine jerks.

Since you have failed to read the article before posting, please let me know where so I can avoid it.

Maybe the cap is there for a reason...IE to avoid Mickey Mouse Bullsh!t lawsuits like this turd?

It's not a cap.

The case raises a technical issue over the family's access to federal courts if their alleged harm does not amount to at least $75,000 ? the minimum required under U.S. law ? but the girl's separate lawsuit alleging physical damages and pain and suffering does.

Sounds like a cap to me...75k of real damage, not psychological bullsh!t to scam money out of businesses....

 

[AFB]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: amdfanboy

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: amdfanboy

Originally posted by: Quasmo
This is the reason I want to be a judge. I would throw people out of court left and right... Asinine jerks.

Since you have failed to read the article before posting, please let me know where so I can avoid it.

Maybe the cap is there for a reason...IE to avoid Mickey Mouse Bullsh!t lawsuits like this turd?

It's not a cap.

The case raises a technical issue over the family's access to federal courts if their alleged harm does not amount to at least $75,000 ? the minimum required under U.S. law ? but the girl's separate lawsuit alleging physical damages and pain and suffering does.

Sounds like a cap to me...75k of real damage, not psychological bullsh!t to scam money out of businesses....

It's not a damn cap. If it was a cap, you couldn't sue for anymore. As you can see with the 4-4, this is obviously a divided issue and is not as clear cut as you are making it out to be.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dic...va=cap&x=0&y=0

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: amdfanboy

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: amdfanboy

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: amdfanboy

Originally posted by: Quasmo
This is the reason I want to be a judge. I would throw people out of court left and right... Asinine jerks.

Since you have failed to read the article before posting, please let me know where so I can avoid it.

Maybe the cap is there for a reason...IE to avoid Mickey Mouse Bullsh!t lawsuits like this turd?

It's not a cap.

The case raises a technical issue over the family's access to federal courts if their alleged harm does not amount to at least $75,000 ? the minimum required under U.S. law ? but the girl's separate lawsuit alleging physical damages and pain and suffering does.

Sounds like a cap to me...75k of real damage, not psychological bullsh!t to scam money out of businesses....

It's not a damn cap. If it was a cap, you couldn't sue for anymore. As you can see with the 4-4, this is obviously a divided issue and is not as clear cut as you are making it out to be.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dic...va=cap&x=0&y=0

Ok, minimum requirement...you can now pull your panties out of your crack...

 

[AFB]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
[.....]

Ok, minimum requirement...you can now pull your panties out of your crack...

Thanks, it was beginning to hurt :Q

 

[Axon]

Originally posted by: Balt
Eh, I don't think they are taking the case just b/c they want to rule on the tuna can incident. They real issue is: "The case raises a technical issue over the family's access to federal courts if their alleged harm does not amount to at least $75,000 ? the minimum required under U.S. law ? but the girl's separate lawsuit alleging physical damages and pain and suffering does."

The case would set a standard regarding that issue.

And yes, that family is stupid and should be ended.

Exactly correct. The facts of her "case" notwithstanding, the actual issue here is setting precedent for Subject Matter jurisdiction. The S. Court is looking to set a standard for the rest of the federal courts to follow on this issue.

And for the record, the minimum you can sue for in Federal Court is in "excess of $75,000." I think that's from Section 1331 of the FRCP, not sure off the top of my head.

So in order to sue in federal court, your requested damages award must be $75,000.001 or more. This is to keep the Federal Courts from turning into small claims courts and to limit the amount of claims that are heard in federal court (no assumptions should be taken as to whether or not it actually works). There is no cap on damages, except in certain scenarios.