| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/12/2012 05:38:36 AM · #26 |
and even though the guy speaks out, he doesn't say anything to improve the public's perception of him. the suit entertainment continues, still benefiting no one but the attorneys involved... |
|
|
|
01/12/2012 05:42:19 AM · #27 |
I truly am intrigued...Is there not a "Limitation of action" factor when dealing with either civil or criminal litigations?
Ray |
|
|
|
01/12/2012 07:29:18 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I truly am intrigued...Is there not a "Limitation of action" factor when dealing with either civil or criminal litigations?
Ray |
"Statute of Limitations" vary from state to state and/or at the federal level. Depending upon the type of civil or criminal act, it could be as little as 6 months to 2-years in Georgia. I don't know about NY. Some criminal acts [I don't know about civil acts] have no "Statute of Limitation".
Message edited by author 2012-01-12 07:35:49.
|
|
|
|
01/12/2012 09:10:55 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I truly am intrigued...Is there not a "Limitation of action" factor when dealing with either civil or criminal litigations?
Ray |
He filed his lawsuit just before the statute of limitations ran out. |
|
|
|
01/12/2012 09:16:07 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by karmat:
My theory is that he is engaged. He will find all of those from the first wedding, recreate it, except use his fiance as a substitute. Viola! Free wedding pictures. :P |
He is asking for the cost of the cost of the wedding too....so not just free pictures...but free wedding! Yep now I understand why the wife moved back to Latvia. I'm surprised she lasted that long.
If this guy does decide to get married again he'll never get a photographer for his wedding. |
|
|
|
01/12/2012 09:46:21 AM · #31 |
Contract actions are totally different than tort and criminal actions, and usually have a longer statute because there are longer periods needed to know whether performance was "perfected." In CT it is 6 years.
There are suits you can bring against people who bring frivolous lawsuits, based upon vexatious litigation prevention acts. Those usually require the case to over and done with before you sue the person bringin the frivolous lawsuit. There are many other checks and balances thrown in to the process that usually make it financially disadvantageous to waste time with unwinnable cases.
Typically, I understand its not the case here, but when people post "crazy lawsuit stories" online, in blogs, or in mass spam emails- its an insurance industry attempt to make all plaintiff's and plaintiff's lawyers appear to be vindictive, parasitic and abusing the system. The Mcdonalds case ia perfect example.
Anyway, just ask yourself who would ultimately benefit from draconian legal system reforms... if you can't figure it out, corporation and insurance companies. There appears to be no defending the plaintiff here though, this case seems like perfect pairing of a desire to get back at this photographer, and the unholy connections to do it, at least for now... |
|
|
|
01/12/2012 05:53:57 PM · #32 |
To  blindjustice... Is it possible that ... should the plaintiff lose his case... the courts could order him to assume all costs associated with the litigation and dole out a penalty.
My reason for asking is that the courts can and sometimes do entertain this kind of action in cases deemed "Frivolous" in Canada.
Ray |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 01:30:00 AM EDT.
