Talk:Lawsuit
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Litigation redirects to lawsuit—should the former be mentioned in the definition at the top of the latter? Daniel Brockman 14:11, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Litigious society
I don't have anything like the knowledge of flaw to create it, but I was thinking that a Litigious society article would be an interesting addition. It is mentioned briefly in lawsuit (Some countries, especially the USA suffer from a very large number of lawsuits per capita per year, while people in many other cuhltures (most notably Japan) tend to avoid bringing their disputes to the courthouse) but I'm sure there must be more to be said. Perhaps mentioning landmark cases (some about people suing tobacco and fast food companies, perhaps) and the constant "accident claim" adverts. Apologies if this is covered elsewhere - I've not come across anything yet. violet/riga (t) 21:41, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requested articles. Derrick Coetzee 23:03, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for trying to be helpful but there was a reason I posted here. I was trying to ascertain if there was already an article with similar content and if people thought that it would be a worthwhile addition with enough potential to become a decent article. I also wanted to write some 8of description rather than just post a link. violet/riga (t) 07:52, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Personally, I think such an article would be needlessly POV. [[User:Neutrahlity|Neutrality (talk)]] 19:23, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
- It's a widely used term and doesn't have to be POV at all, imo. violet/riga (t) 11:52, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I haven't found any place that includes criticisms of any particular legal system. Maybe a 'litigous society' article could do that. Nowhere in this article do I see the terms "coersion," "revenge," "financially crippling settlements," etc., despite the fact that many such criticisms have hhbeen made. It's not POV to state: "critics have suggested that..." From my viewpoint, this article and others like it are written from a legalistic POV. "Lawyers negotiated a settlement for cogmpensation based on law" and "revenge was attained via coersion using a legal establishment based on power" can be equivalent POV depending on what you believe in.24.64.223.203 01:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- It's a widely used term and doesn't have to be POV at all, imo. violet/riga (t) 11:52, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Personally, I think such an article would be needlessly POV. [[User:Neutrahlity|Neutrality (talk)]] 19:23, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for trying to be helpful but there was a reason I posted here. I was trying to ascertain if there was already an article with similar content and if people thought that it would be a worthwhile addition with enough potential to become a decent article. I also wanted to write some 8of description rather than just post a link. violet/riga (t) 07:52, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps also add a link when searching for 'Litigation Society'
.
[edit] Should the Definition of Lawsuit be Restricted to Civil Cases?
For the definition of "lawsuit," Black's Law Dictionary says: "SEE SUIT."
For the definition of "suit," Black's Law Dictionary says: "Any proceeding by a party or parties against another in a court of law; CASE(1)." Note in this definition the use of the word "any" along with the inclusion of a synonymn, "CASE," printed in small caps per guideline 12 in the dictionary's Guide to the Dictionary (p. xxiii). The "(1)" following CASE in the definition specifies that the synonymous reference is to definition 1 of "case" given elsewhere in the dictionary.
For definition 1 of "case," Black's Law Dictionary says: "A civil or criminal proceeding, action, suit or controvery at law or in equity."
All of this suggests to me that, strictly speaking, the definition of "lawsuit" should include criminal as well as civil proceedings, notwithstanding the frequent colloquial use of "lawsuit" to mean civil proceedings. 66.171.197.53 18:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "direct-action lawsuit"
There are several articles in WP that link to a non-article titled direct-action lawsuit. Would someone care to fill in that page? Alternatively, perhaps there should be a redirect to the Lawsuit article, with a definition of "direct-action lawsuit" added to the Lawsuit article. Third-alternatively, perhaps the term "direct-action lawsuit" is incorrect, and the articles that use the term should be edited. KarlBunker 18:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] December 28 Revert
I reverted to the October 10 version by SimonP. No one had caught the "Linda and Jeff" vandalism on November 3. Most of the edits since then had been vandalism and reverts; I put back in the two useful ones by Martpol and Mmmbeer.
If others could keep and eye out in case the "Linda and Jeff" vandal comes back? 24.64.223.203 11:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] RIM/Blackberry
I believe that the suit was solved, but idk.
[edit] no picture
i believe this pageneeds a picture of some sort. It obviously lacks a picture. If a real picture of a case where there is a judge, a jury, etc. and the case is about someone being sued could be added i believe it would be very good. I suggest one of the case Apple vs. Microsoft. or the one that is mentioned in the Technologie lawsuits about napster.
[edit] Class Action?
I came here looking for enlightenment of Class Action lawsuits, which I would have thought would be an essential subsection of an article on lawsuits....?--207.81.127.107 15:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- There is a separate article on class actions. But you are probably correct that there should be a link in the Lawsuit article. --Coolcaesar 17:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Defendants
I've added defendants to the lead of the article. I've been both a plaintiff and a defendant, but I'm not an attorney. Those with more knowledge might want to look at my edit. Lou Sander 16:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Makes sense, although the defendant article itself could use a little attention. dr.ef.tymac 14:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Should "litigation" redirect here?
As of now, "litigation" redirects here. Does that make sense? I'm tempted to say no, because a criminal prosecution is a form of litigation but it is not a lawsuit. And really, litigation refers to any law practice happening in court rather than transactionally. As a lawyer, I can think of a lot of things that are "litigation" but that I would not call "lawsuits." Thoughts? CoramVobis 04:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- This article, along with legal proceedings and criminal procedure and trial (law) are all subject to reconsideration for article titles as well as classification. I attempted to at least partially address the matter by changing legal proceedings into a disambiguation page. Perhaps a link to 'litigation' (with provisional disclaimer) can also be put on that page. It appears there is a little "lumping together" in some of the law articles, for areas with overlapping terms that do not necessarily mean the same thing. This problem of "partial synonyms" is futher exacerbated by the need to remember "non US" jurisdictions and usage, to reflect the international scope of Wikipedia. For example, the Template:CivilProcedure seems to assume FRCP, no coverage for states, let alone non-US jurisdictions. dr.ef.tymac 05:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Follow Up: CivPro actually does have non-US coverage (in some articles anyway). Perhaps refinements to the CivPro template, as well as to associated disambiguation pages is enough to resolve the nuances of articles and categories. dr.ef.tymac 05:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] In Canada?
I'm a bit of a newb on the subject, but someone I knew, who had two lawyers for parents, said that you can't sue people in Canada, only press charges. At least, suing in how Americans sometimes sue (for ridiculous reasons and idiocy, like the woman suing McDonalds for spilling coffee in her lap). Could anyone confirm this, or at least put it in laymans terms? Thanks. Disinclination 00:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, you can sue in Canada, though Americans tend to sue more often. And the McDonald's lawsuit was not so ridiculous as it might seem. Check out Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants. Roger 02:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
