Two related questions about legal procedure:

Don't you need _grounds_ for an appeal? It seems that every conviction I
read about in the paper includes "john doe is appealing". Never a mention
of why [other than sour grapes :o)] nor do you ever hear about what
happened with the appeal

Is there really no standard for "frivolous lawsuits" [for which a lawyer
can be sanctioned]? After the election lawyers filed something like 60 lawsuits, all [but one I think] thrown out of court. Are lawyers really allowed to waste the court's time relitigating basically the same evidence
in court after court? Note that [AFAIK\] they didn't *appeal* the
decisions but rather filed anew. I'm wondering what the "standard" is [if there is one] for frivolous litigation and what the penalties [if any]
might be.

/Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep <--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com> wrote:

Two related questions about legal procedure:

Don't you need _grounds_ for an appeal? It seems that every
conviction I read about in the paper includes "john doe is
appealing". Never a mention of why [other than sour grapes :o)]
nor do you ever hear about what happened with the appeal

Yes, you need grounds to appeal. You have to have a legal argument
for why what the trial judge did should be changed. If you can't
come up with a convincing reason for that, you will lose. The court
may not even give you a hearing.

Is there really no standard for "frivolous lawsuits" [for which a
lawyer can be sanctioned]? After the election lawyers filed
something like 60 lawsuits, all [but one I think] thrown out of
court. Are lawyers really allowed to waste the court's time
relitigating basically the same evidence in court after court?
Note that [AFAIK\] they didn't *appeal* the decisions but rather
filed anew. I'm wondering what the "standard" is [if there is
one] for frivolous litigation and what the penalties [if any]
might be.

Whether a suit is or is not frivolous is largely subjective. However
given the training lawyers are given, their conclusions of what is or
is not frivolous (when you don't have a dog in the fight) can be very consistent.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Bernie Cosell" wrote in message news:ebku7gdm9f27fg4sb476kh0f4a851n2726@4ax.com...

Two related questions about legal procedure:

Don't you need _grounds_ for an appeal? It seems that every conviction I >read about in the paper includes "john doe is appealing". Never a mention
of why [other than sour grapes :o)] nor do you ever hear about what
happened with the appeal

Is there really no standard for "frivolous lawsuits" [for which a lawyer
can be sanctioned]? After the election lawyers filed something like 60 >lawsuits, all [but one I think] thrown out of court. Are lawyers really >allowed to waste the court's time relitigating basically the same evidence
in court after court? Note that [AFAIK\] they didn't *appeal* the
decisions but rather filed anew. I'm wondering what the "standard" is [if >there is one] for frivolous litigation and what the penalties [if any]
might be.

/Bernie\

Keep in mind that under our adversarial system, lawyers are expected to give the very best defense they can for their clients, even when the case seems open-and-shut. Every defendant is entitled to their day in court, no
matter how stacked the odds may be against them. So yes, when a defendant loses in court, they are entitled to having the best case made for any
possible appeal. Do you need grounds? Of course. Do you get to
relitigate the entire case? Not normally. But if the attorney can find any possible mistake or procedural error or anything that gives even a glimmer
of hope to their client, they have a responsibility to make the best appeal case they can. It is up to the courts and judges to decide if the appeal
has merit.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)