Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Indian legal system empowers courts to deal with vexatious litigation through several mechanisms. [24] One common tool is the imposition of costs on the litigant who files frivolous suits. Courts have the discretion to order costs to be paid to the opposing party as a means of discouraging such behavior.
Most common is the threatened initiation of a lawsuit against the second party. Other threats might include an administrative law action or complaint, referring the other party to a regulatory body, turning the party into the legal authorities over a crime or civil infraction, or the like. Legal threats are often veiled or indirect, e.g. a ...
An abuse of process is the unjustified or unreasonable use of legal proceedings or process to further a cause of action by an applicant or plaintiff in an action. It is a claim made by the respondent or defendant that the other party is misusing or perverting regularly issued court process (civil or criminal) not justified by the underlying legal action.
The U.S. Congress has enacted section 1912 of Title 28 of the U.S.C. providing that in the U.S. Supreme Court and in the U.S. Courts of Appeals where litigation by the losing party has caused damage to the prevailing party, the court may impose a requirement that the losing party pay the prevailing party for those damages. [6]
Lawfare is the use of legal systems and institutions to damage or delegitimize an opponent, or to deter an individual's usage of their legal rights. The term may refer to the use of legal systems and principles against an enemy, such as by damaging or delegitimizing them, wasting their time and money (e.g., strategic lawsuits against public participation), or winning a public relations victory.
(Reuters) -Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has vowed to investigate or prosecute political rivals, election workers and left-wing Americans if he becomes president again. Trump has ...
The second Trump administration was expected to more successful in crafting its executive orders and policies to withstand court challenges, but so far that has not proven to be the case in the ...
Pullman abstention was the first "doctrine of abstention" to be announced by the Court, and is named for Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941).The doctrine holds that "the federal courts should not adjudicate the constitutionality of state enactments fairly open to interpretation until the state courts have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to pass on them."