just WOW -- I have never heard of a new trial "carrying over" the ruling from another, related case.

Now, before your TDS kicks in, can you find another case where a different case's results "carry over"
https://www.foxnews.com/politi...e-must-trial-damages

this really seems banana republic-y to me

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
just WOW -- I have never heard of a new trial "carrying over" the ruling from another, related case.

Now, before your TDS kicks in, can you find another case where a different case's results "carry over"
https://www.foxnews.com/politi...e-must-trial-damages

this really seems banana republic-y to me

None of the facts changed, testimony could only change in the case of perjury, then or now.

I like judicial economy, and hope she gets hers before New York starts selling all his bits and bobs to satisfy the Fraud judgement he's staring down the barrel of.

It is absolutely amazing to me that he has been using his "worthless clause" for DECADES and gotten away with it.

Jeff,
I thought the second trail was because he mouthed off after the first trial?

but if it is, as you say, no facts, etc have changed, the is that double jeopardy ?

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Jeff,
I thought the second trail was because he mouthed off after the first trial?

but if it is, as you say, no facts, etc have changed, the is that double jeopardy ?

The facts of what he did are established as adjudicated, this is just concerning the new set of denials and lies.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Jeff,
I thought the second trail was because he mouthed off after the first trial?

but if it is, as you say, no facts, etc have changed, the is that double jeopardy ?

The finding is res judicata (the issue has been decided). And double jeopardy only applies in relation to criminal charges.

If there had been a finding in the first trial that there was no defamation in relation to the same statement, her case would get tossed. Collateral estoppel. Cuts both ways.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Jeff,
I thought the second trail was because he mouthed off after the first trial?

but if it is, as you say, no facts, etc have changed, the is that double jeopardy ?

The facts of what he did are established as adjudicated, this is just concerning the new set of denials and lies.

It is the same basic facts. He said she was lying again. As a matter of law, those statements are defamatory. It is a matter of res judicata. A legal principal that forecloses litigation when a competent court has already adjudicated the parties’ issue between them.

MM, I am sorry. I posted over you again.

thanks for educating me in this

More money for the human vermin!

There must be a law limiting the hourly charges of lawyers.

$100 dollars an hour.

No more than $800 a day!

See how this stupid litigation stops in its tracks!

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
More money for the human vermin!

There must be a law limiting the hourly charges of lawyers.

$100 dollars an hour.

No more than $800 a day!

See how this stupid litigation stops in its tracks!

Maybe so, but then there should also be a cap on CEOs and hookers, and shareholders and brokers and Royal families who ended up in charge because of accidents of history.

Limit them all to $800/day.