My father once told me that a person can sue someone else over and over, even as the case keeps getting thrown out. He said this can b done without any repercussions, and thus can be used as a strategy to get someone to do what you want. Admittedly, you would need so much money and time that it’s too impractical too be done, but I’m still curious whether it true or not.
And If it is true, is it only in certain states, like, say, Pennsylvania.
I know New York can fine you for filing frivolous lawsuits. Other states have probably done it also. I think recently Orly Taitz got slapped down for repeated lawsuits related to Obama’s birth certificate.
In Canada, if you try that tactic the courts will award court costs against you, and can declare you a vexatious litigant. Once that declaration is made, you can’t start a new action except by leave of the court.
See res judicata.
Thanks for the answers.
I should have known it was too ridiculous to be true…
“Vexatious Litigant” is broader than res judicata, which refers to re-suing on a particular issue that has been settled. But if Smith is continually suing Jones, on different issues, it’s not res judicata, but Smith could well be declared a vexatious litigant.
Isn’t this what happens to inmates who continuously file suits over the most trivial things?
Don’t have any personal knowledge of it, but yes, that’s a possible outcome.
Abuse of process. And, possible prof conduct issue for counsel if they are aware or should have been aware of the litigants history.
They can try. But as a lawyer who works with prison inmates often, I can assure you that it doesn’t often work.
I will say that rarely, the inmates have good grounds. Mostly, they don’t. For example, they do not have s. 8 Charter rights (illegal search and seizure) rights while in custody. They do maintain Charter s.2(b) rights (freedom of thought, belief, and expression; which includes the right to silence) rights; which, as one who represents them, I think they should exercise more often. But sometimes they do have good grounds, and it is my job to make sure that if they choose to move forward, that they can.
Just doin’ my job, is all.
I’ll add the following, from the Charter:
Section 11(c) further extends the right to silence. Note that these rights extend to those in custody.
It’s what I do.
In common law, this used to be the offence of Barratry (now codified in some jurisdictions). Dante assigned Barrators to the 8th Circle of Hell 
English law (from which US law derives) would call such a person a vexatious litigant - as mentioned above. Or Barratry as MrDribble says. So far as I know California was the first state to codify the law in 1963.
In English law there is a useful chap called Raymond Blackburn who was a sometime Member of Parliament. He is known to legions of law students for his sterling efforts in litigation against the British Attorney-General in the 1970s. Thanks to Mr Blackburn who filled the role of an enthusiastic but not quite vexatious litigant, the law was expanded.
Sometimes we actually need these bullheaded single-minded people to push the boundaries.
Beside what was stated by others, lets say you did so, not worried about CIVIL sanctions/counter suits, a continual barrage of lawsuits can and most probably will be CRIMINAL in nature also.
SLAPP, a proper acronym.
I’ve gotten the impression that if a suit is dismissed “with prejudice”, the matter is settled for once and all.
Sure. That doesn’t stop you from refiling it, though, and forcing the defendant to expend funds defending against the second suit. It just means your suit will be unsuccessful*. In the US, the parties pay their own attorneys’ fees, unless fees are awarded as a sanction (which is unlikely to happen on the second try.) In the UK, the loser pays the winner’s fees, which cuts down on this sort of thing.
*in addition to res iudicata, mentioned above (which is also known as claim preclusion), there’s collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, which prohibits relitigation of individual issues within suits.
I thought “with prejudice” meant it was essentially settled, could NOT be refiled?
I assume the OP is referring to the vexacious serial litigant? I’ll sue you for the obnoixious colour of your fence, then when that fails, for the weeds blowing seeds into my yard, then your smelly noisy car, then…
Whether or not res iudicata applies is a question of law. The court clerk is not qualified to determine whether or not it applies, and the court generally won’t dismiss an action on its own, so you have to file a motion for summary judgment (in some jurisdictions, it would be a motion to dismiss but in Florida an MTD may not refer to matters outside the four corners of the complaint, such as whether the case was previously dismissed.)
Bit of a hijack, but do Canadian prisoners have a statutory obligation to exhaust administrative processes - that is, within the prison system - before they can litigate? That’s the rule for prisoners in the American system; they need to exhaust all administrative remedies available before they can enter federal court, thanks to our Prisoner Litigation Reform Act. Nasty bit of work, that.