Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty Dane
No, you do not understand what precedent in this context is, because the claims are related to process - not mandatory ruling as you say. Full precedent is about the principles under some local jurisdiction, or under some hiearchy of jurisdiction, referering to a case that actually have been ruled. A judge can't dismiss a case refering to a precendent which have never been set, nor can he deny peoples right to file. If someone file again, they might be dismissed if it is exactly same situation under same jurisdiction, and consequense could be paying the costs, but each claim would probably have other arguments. They know that now, but what lawyers advise you to do, is not the same as precedent as a ruled mandatory principle. In other words, I think you misunderstand everything, because a weak plaintiff is not the same as other stronger arguments can't be used.
|
except now that the dismissal is on record the defendent can point to it and claim that a new case is the same old thing and should be dismissed as quickly.
before you can ever get any of your "other arguments" heard you would have to disprove this claim.
Fail to do so and the case goes away. It is one more road block in the away of getting a ruling in your favor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crockett
btw being it's Brazers whom owns many of these illegal tubes. Why doesn't someone sue them for unfair business practices? I'm sure it could be argued that they are trying to dilute their competitions content by giving it away for free on tube sites, causing their competition harm.
|
brazzers could point to the ruling and say see that is the exact same arguement (Which it is BTW) and it would fold like house of cards.