Frivolous litigation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Frivolous litigation is a legal claim or defense presented even though the party and the party's legal counsel had reason to know that the claim or defense had no merit. A claim or defense may be frivolous because it had no underlying justification in fact, or because it was not presented with an argument for a reasonable extension or reinterpretation of the law.
In the United States, Federal Rule 11 and similar state rules require that an attorney perform a due diligence investigation concerning the factual basis for any claim or defense. Jurisdictions differ on whether a claim or defense can be frivolous if the attorney acted in good faith. Because a frivolous defense or claim wastes the court's and the other parties' time, resources and legal fees, sanctions may be imposed by a court upon the party or the lawyer who presents the frivolous defense or claim. The law firm may also be sanctioned.
Lawyer Daniel B. Evans writes:
| “ | [W]hen a judge calls an argument "ridiculous" or "frivolous," it is absolutely the worst thing the judge could say. It means that the person arguing the position has absolutely no idea of what he is doing, and has completely wasted everyone's time. It doesn't mean that the case wasn't well argued, or that judge simply decided for the other side, it means that there was no other side. The argument was absolutely, positively, incompetent. The judge is not telling you that you were "wrong." The judge is telling you that you are out of your mind. [2] | ” |
Contents |
[edit] Example of court treatment of frivolous arguments
An example of a Court's treatment of frivolous arguments is found in the case of Crain v. Commissioner, from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit:
-
- Glenn Crain appeals from the dismissal of his Tax Court petition challenging the constitutional authority of that body and defying the jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service to levy taxes on his income. Crain asserts that he "is not subject to the jurisdiction, taxation, nor regulation of the state," that the "Internal Revenue Service, Incorporated" lacks authority to exercise the judicial power of the United States, that the Tax Court is unconstitutionally attempting to exercise Article III powers, and that jurisdiction over his person has never been affirmatively proven.
-
- We perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit. The constitutionality of our income tax system--including the role played within that system by the Internal Revenue Service and the Tax Court--has long been established. We affirm the dismissal of Crain's spurious "petition" and the assessment of a penalty imposed by the Tax Court for instituting a frivolous proceeding. 26 U. S. C. §6673.
-
- The government asks us to assess penalties against Crain for bringing this frivolous appeal, as is authorized by Fed. R. App. P. 38. In Parker v. C. I. R., 724 F. 2d 469, 472 (5th Cir. 1984), we sounded "a cautionary note to those who would persistently raise arguments against the income tax which have been put to rest for years. The full range of sanctions in Rule 38 hereafter shall be summoned in response to a totally frivolous appeal."
-
- We are sensitive to the need for the courts to remain open to all who seek in good faith to invoke the protection of law. An appeal that lacks merit is not always--or often--frivolous. However, we are not obliged to suffer in silence the filing of baseless, insupportable appeals presenting no colorable claims of error and designed only to delay, obstruct, or incapacitate the operations of the courts or any other governmental authority. Crain's present appeal is of this sort. It is a hodgepodge of unsupported assertions, irrelevant platitudes, and legalistic gibberish. The government should not have been put to the trouble of responding to such spurious arguments, nor this court to the trouble of "adjudicating" this meritless appeal.
-
- Accordingly, we grant the government's request. The United States shall recover from appellant Crain twice its cost of this appeal. Additionally, we assess against Crain a damage award of $2000 in favor of the appellee United States.[1]
Litigants who represent themselves (in forma pauperis and pro se) often make frivolous arguments due to their limited knowledge of the law and procedure. The particular tendency of prisoners to bring baseless lawsuits led the Congress of the United States to pass and President Bill Clinton to sign the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which strictly limits the ability of prisoners to bring actions.
[edit] An epitome
In Washington v. Alaimo[2] the court listed a number of frivolous motions.
- "Motion to Behoove an Inquisition"
- "Motion for Judex Delegatus"
- "Motion for Restoration of Sanity"
- "Motion for Deinstitutionalization"
- "Motion for Publicity"
- "Motion to Vacate Jurisdiction"
- "Motion for Cesset pro Cessus"
- "Motion for Nunc pro Tunc"
- "Motion for Psychoanalysis"
- "Motion to Impeach Judge Alaimo"
- "Motion to Renounce Citizenship"
- "Motion to Exhume Body of Alex Hodgson"
- "Motion to Invoke and Execute Rule 15--Retroactive Note: The Court's School Days are Over"
- "Motion for Skin Change Operation"
- "Motion for Catered Food Services"
To be deemed frivolous, a litigant's arguments must truly strike beyond the pale.[3]
[edit] Colloquial use of the term "frivolous"
The more common or colloquial use of the term "frivolous" in political discourse refers to lawsuits that are based on a theory that seems absurd, or where the claim results in damages that greatly exceed what one would expect from reading a brief summary of the case. Awards for medical malpractice are sometimes derided as frivolous (in this sense of meaning "excessive").
If a jury and a judge decided in favor of the plaintiff in such cases, the plaintiff's claim was not technically frivolous, though it might be considered frivolous colloquially. Because of the ambiguity in the term, calling these lawsuits "frivolous" can lead to confusion because opposite sides of the tort reform debate can both say they oppose "frivolous" suits, with the tort reform supporters referring to the colloquial understanding, and tort reform opponents referring to the narrower technical definition.[3]
