Civil lawsuit: plaintiff's word vs nothing

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Hmm. The article doesn’t cite any case law. My understanding is that where bench trials are denied, it is because the judge doesn’t believe the defendant is making a knowing waiver, not because the state has a right to a jury.

[Procrustus]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Hmm. The article doesn’t cite any case law. My understanding is that where bench trials are denied, it is because the judge doesn’t believe the defendant is making a knowing waiver, not because the state has a right to a jury.

Well, I found it. It’s in the Federal Rules:

Rule 23. Jury or Nonjury Trial

(a) Jury Trial. If the defendant is entitled to a jury trial, the trial must be by jury unless:

(1) the defendant waives a jury trial in writing;

(2) the government consents; and

(3) the court approves.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Interesting.

[Acsenray]

@BigT

And that’s why it’s a bad argument for a “frivolous case.” It doesn’t just mean a case where you disagree with the judgment. It is one where no reasonable person could have sided with the plaintiff.

You want frivolous cases? Try the recent music cases where three notes or having a similar style is enough to infer copyright infringement.

Or, worse, the ones that they have no hope of winning, like all the various SLAPP suits where the point is to punish the person by making them have to pay legal costs, even when the case will be dismissed.

This is exactly right. There are very good arguments to support the outcome in the McDonald’s coffee case. If it’s a “we agree to disagree” situation, by definition it isn’t frivolous.