Courtroom5: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
*Haines v Kerner - pro se pleadings and motions should be viewed liberally and held to a lesser standard than those drafted by attorneys | *Haines v Kerner - pro se pleadings and motions should be viewed liberally and held to a lesser standard than those drafted by attorneys | ||
*Baldinger v. Ferri, No. 12-4529 (3d Cir. 2013), held that a pro se litigant’s repeated and willful discovery abuses did not require forgiveness and merited a default judgment | *Baldinger v. Ferri, No. 12-4529 (3d Cir. 2013), held that a pro se litigant’s repeated and willful discovery abuses did not require forgiveness and merited a default judgment | ||
=Appeal= | |||
*There are many standards of review, but the most are abuse of discretion and de novo. An abuse of discretion standard determines if a discretionary ruling was unreasonable. When a de novo review is applied, the case is reviewed as if the lower court decision did not take place. Little deference is given to the lower court in a de novo review. [https://courtroom5.com/blog/you-too-can-write-an-appellate-brief/] | |||
Revision as of 02:09, 15 September 2024
Personal Practice of Law is allowed! https://courtroom5.com/blog/the-personal-practice-of-law-empowering-pro-se-litigants-to-reclaim-the-courts/
Links
- Justice Legal Tech - https://justicetechassociation.org/about/
Dismissal Issues
- suing for claims not recognized by law - cause for potential dismissal [1]
- courts are required to deem allegations in the complaint as true
Elements
Example: elements of tortuous interference.
- Elements of tortious interference
(1) An economic relationship that was likely to benefit the plaintiff; (2) The defendant’s knowledge of this relationship; (3) Wrongful conduct by the defendant; (4) Defendant’s intent to disrupt the economic relationship; (5) Disruption of the relationship; (6) Harm to the plaintiff; and (7) A causal connection between the wrongful act and the harm.
Facts vs Conclusions
Example of a difference: [2]
- Conclusion–“Defendant’s behavior constituted a breach of contract”.
- Fact–”The plaintiff and defendant had an exclusive contract in which the plaintiff’s pocket pants would be the only ones of its kind sold by the defendant. Yet, the defendant sold pocket pants made by other designers.”
Summary Judgment
- [3]. The widely accepted standard for granting summary judgment is twofold: (1) that no material facts are in dispute, and (2) that the moving party deserves judgment as a matter of law.
- One way to defeat is to show that an affirmative defense remains viable
Appeal Based on Legal Malpractice
- Pro se who hires a lawyer can appeal based on malpractice [4]
- Haines v Kerner - pro se pleadings and motions should be viewed liberally and held to a lesser standard than those drafted by attorneys
- Baldinger v. Ferri, No. 12-4529 (3d Cir. 2013), held that a pro se litigant’s repeated and willful discovery abuses did not require forgiveness and merited a default judgment
Appeal
- There are many standards of review, but the most are abuse of discretion and de novo. An abuse of discretion standard determines if a discretionary ruling was unreasonable. When a de novo review is applied, the case is reviewed as if the lower court decision did not take place. Little deference is given to the lower court in a de novo review. [5]