Talk:Lawsuit

Confusion in the first sentence (definition)

Isn't something seriously wrong with the definition of lawsuit in the first sentence? It doesn't make much sense, and I'm not even sure if it is a valid sentence as such. Could somebody correct this soon, as this is an important article? (Jurusie (talk) 12:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Litigation redirects to lawsuit—should the former be mentioned in the definition at the top of the latter? Daniel Brockman 14:11, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

Responsibility for service of process

The page says "The clerk of court then issues a summons, or serves process, upon the defendants, together with a copy of the complaint." In all cases I'm familiar with, the plaintiff is responsible for service of process, not the court. Lippard (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Article changed. See Rule 4(b) and 4(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (civil actions in federal court). Famspear (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Litigious society

I don't have anything like the knowledge of flaw to create it, but I was thinking that a Litigious society article would be an interesting addition. It is mentioned briefly in lawsuit (Some countries, especially the USA suffer from a very large number of lawsuits per capita per year, while people in many other cuhltures (most notably Japan) tend to avoid bringing their disputes to the courthouse) but I'm sure there must be more to be said. Perhaps mentioning landmark cases (some about people suing tobacco and fast food companies, perhaps) and the constant "accident claim" adverts. Apologies if this is covered elsewhere - I've not come across anything yet. violet/riga (t) 21:41, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested articles. Derrick Coetzee 23:03, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to be helpful but there was a reason I posted here. I was trying to ascertain if there was already an article with similar content and if people thought that it would be a worthwhile addition with enough potential to become a decent article. I also wanted to write some 8of description rather than just post a link. violet/riga (t) 07:52, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I think such an article would be needlessly POV. [[User:Neutrahlity|Neutrality (talk)]] 19:23, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

It's a widely used term and doesn't have to be POV at all, imo. violet/riga (t) 11:52, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I haven't found any place that includes criticisms of any particular legal system. Maybe a 'litigous society' article could do that. Nowhere in this article do I see the terms "coersion," "revenge," "financially crippling settlements," etc., despite the fact that many such criticisms have hhbeen made. It's not POV to state: "critics have suggested that..." From my viewpoint, this article and others like it are written from a legalistic POV. "Lawyers negotiated a settlement for cogmpensation based on law" and "revenge was attained via coersion using a legal establishment based on power" can be equivalent POV depending on what you believe in.24.64.223.203 01:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even the sentence above, "the USA suffer[s] from a very large number of lawsuits per capita" is riddled with POV. It is an equally valid position that the United States and other countries "benefit" from solving problems in court, rather than having citizens "deal with it" themselves. An article on "Litigious society" would just become a sociological debate, and is not necessary from the encyclopedic goals of Wikipedia, in my opinion. Treko (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's valid to say "suffers" because many lawsuits by their nature are adversarial, competitive, hostile, imbalanced due to wealth differences, settled in coercive out-of-court settlements, prone to judicial ego and prejudice, and based on the guesswork termed a "balance of probabilities." Nor does "dealing with it themselves" have to be abusive. It's a fact that solutions involving true communication, humility, and compassion can eliminate many of the aforementioned problems and reduce the number of lawsuits. 216.232.242.7 (talk) 06:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps also add a link when searching for 'Litigation Society'

.

Should the Definition of Lawsuit be Restricted to Civil Cases?

For the definition of "lawsuit," Black's Law Dictionary says: "SEE SUIT."

For the definition of "suit," Black's Law Dictionary says: "Any proceeding by a party or parties against another in a court of law; CASE(1)." Note in this definition the use of the word "any" along with the inclusion of a synonymn, "CASE," printed in small caps per guideline 12 in the dictionary's Guide to the Dictionary (p. xxiii). The "(1)" following CASE in the definition specifies that the synonymous reference is to definition 1 of "case" given elsewhere in the dictionary.

For definition 1 of "case," Black's Law Dictionary says: "A civil or criminal proceeding, action, suit or controvery at law or in equity."

All of this suggests to me that, strictly speaking, the definition of "lawsuit" should include criminal as well as civil proceedings, notwithstanding the frequent colloquial use of "lawsuit" to mean civil proceedings. 66.171.197.53 18:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"direct-action lawsuit"

There are several articles in WP that link to a non-article titled direct-action lawsuit. Would someone care to fill in that page? Alternatively, perhaps there should be a redirect to the Lawsuit article, with a definition of "direct-action lawsuit" added to the Lawsuit article. Third-alternatively, perhaps the term "direct-action lawsuit" is incorrect, and the articles that use the term should be edited. KarlBunker 18:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 28 Revert

I reverted to the October 10 version by SimonP. No one had caught the "Linda and Jeff" vandalism on November 3. Most of the edits since then had been vandalism and reverts; I put back in the two useful ones by Martpol and Mmmbeer.

If others could keep and eye out in case the "Linda and Jeff" vandal comes back? 24.64.223.203 11:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RIM/Blackberry

I believe that the suit was solved, but idk.

no picture

i believe this pageneeds a picture of some sort. It obviously lacks a picture. If a real picture of a case where there is a judge, a jury, etc. and the case is about someone being sued could be added i believe it would be very good. I suggest one of the case Apple vs. Microsoft. or the one that is mentioned in the Technologie lawsuits about napster.

Class Action?

I came here looking for enlightenment of Class Action lawsuits, which I would have thought would be an essential subsection of an article on lawsuits....?--207.81.127.107 15:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a separate article on class actions. But you are probably correct that there should be a link in the Lawsuit article. --Coolcaesar 17:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defendants

I've added defendants to the lead of the article. I've been both a plaintiff and a defendant, but I'm not an attorney. Those with more knowledge might want to look at my edit. Lou Sander 16:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, although the defendant article itself could use a little attention. dr.ef.tymac 14:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should "litigation" redirect here?

As of now, "litigation" redirects here. Does that make sense? I'm tempted to say no, because a criminal prosecution is a form of litigation but it is not a lawsuit. And really, litigation refers to any law practice happening in court rather than transactionally. As a lawyer, I can think of a lot of things that are "litigation" but that I would not call "lawsuits." Thoughts? CoramVobis 04:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article, along with legal proceedings and criminal procedure and trial (law) are all subject to reconsideration for article titles as well as classification. I attempted to at least partially address the matter by changing legal proceedings into a disambiguation page. Perhaps a link to 'litigation' (with provisional disclaimer) can also be put on that page. It appears there is a little "lumping together" in some of the law articles, for areas with overlapping terms that do not necessarily mean the same thing. This problem of "partial synonyms" is futher exacerbated by the need to remember "non US" jurisdictions and usage, to reflect the international scope of Wikipedia. For example, the Template:Civil procedure (United States) seems to assume FRCP, no coverage for states, let alone non-US jurisdictions. dr.ef.tymac 05:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Follow Up: CivPro actually does have non-US coverage (in some articles anyway). Perhaps refinements to the CivPro template, as well as to associated disambiguation pages is enough to resolve the nuances of articles and categories. dr.ef.tymac 05:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As written, this article is essentially about US law. There is nothing wrong with that, but it seems wrong in principle that "civil action" and "litigation" should point here, at something which is really about the US. The phrase "law suit" (for example) is hardly ever used in my jurisdiction (and we have plenty of law) and never by legal professionals. That may not always have been the position, but it is now. The structure of civil procedure needs a considerable rethink. We have really very different (and increasingly alien) rules of civil procedure to the rest of the common law world. Francis Davey (talk) 11:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Canada?

I'm a bit of a newb on the subject, but someone I knew, who had two lawyers for parents, said that you can't sue people in Canada, only press charges. At least, suing in how Americans sometimes sue (for ridiculous reasons and idiocy, like the woman suing McDonalds for spilling coffee in her lap). Could anyone confirm this, or at least put it in laymans terms? Thanks. Disinclination 00:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can sue in Canada, though Americans tend to sue more often. And the McDonald's lawsuit was not so ridiculous as it might seem. Check out Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants. Roger 02:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Family Guy reference

Is this really necessary? I don't think it's appropriate in the context of a serious article. EightyOne 10:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Types of Litigation

My mom works as a nurse for HCA and tells me that medical litigation is the most common type in the US. I'd want to find some other sources than my mom though (having trouble), and I'd rather it include other types of litigation. I believe the particulars would be suited for their own pages though. What does everyone else think?--24.61.183.36 06:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of lawsuits

I removed the following:

Individuals have been subject to lawsuits from at least the 7th century, as Muhammad who acted as an adjudicator stated:

“ You bring me lawsuits to decide, and perhaps one of you is more skilled in (presenting) his plea than another, and so I judge in his favor according to what I hear. He to whom I give in judgment something that is his brother's right, let him not take it--for I but give him a piece of the fire.<ref>Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:204</ref> ”

The most important objection I have to this recent addition is that it presents a single very isolated datapoint in the history of lawsuits. All it substantively asserts is that there were disputes which were judged in C7. Since we know that there were judges for centuries (millennia?) before that and have been since, that is an almost useless quotation except in the context of a very detailed history of legal disputes which would have to have its own article. In this case I do not believe something is better than nothing. It also suffers because it is essentially a quotation of a primary source without any proper interpretation. I cannot tell from the quotation what the nature of Muhammad's adjudications were. I suspect (though of course I do not know) that they were in context rather unlike what we would conventionally think of as a law suit. I may well be wrong about that of course, but its not a particularly useful way to present information. Francis Davey (talk) 08:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Age?

I've heard cases that have had 13 and 12-year olds as plaintiffs. What is a certain age at which a lawsuit can be held? Does it differ between countries? Should it be stated in the article? 142.68.195.149 (talk) 11:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how angry the plaintiff is. In countries where lawsuits run rampant, the age can be even lower. 205.250.243.241 (talk) 08:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In England and Wales anyone under 18 is classed as a "child" and if they sue must have a litigation friend who brings the claim on their behalf. Clearly a child can suffer damage (say from negligence) so there would be nothing surprising in a 2 year old being the claimant. Francis Davey (talk) 10:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question

What are the consequences for filing a fake lawsuit for copyright? Can you counter sue someone for filing a fake lawsuit against you for emotional trauma? AyshBB (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canonical lawsuit

Within the context of canon law, it is possible to file lawsuits in certain exceptional cases. Therefore, it might be a useful addition if there were a specific entry dealing with the legal topic of canonical lawsuits.[1][2][3][4] ADM (talk) 08:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The red links in the See also section are based on the following....

--222.67.214.52 (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative litigation

Would anyone who is "in the know" (which rules me out!) fancy adding some info. re "Derivative Litigation"?

It's a phrase used in this many articles.

Thanks, Trafford09 (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need. The article on derivative suit already covers the subject. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why this article needs an expert in Law

This article needs an expert in law to help globalize the subject outside the United States of America. Actually, it might need more than just one expert, it may need a few. I'm pretty sure the concept of a lawsuit only exists in the US, so we may need experts from various places to really help globalize this. --Mr. Guye (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: added some non-USA English-speaking countries as needing experts. --Mr. Guye (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The concept of the lawsuit in modern civil procedure is unique to the United States. Other countries have moved away from it as too arcane and use the term "claim" instead. What needs to happen (but won't because no one has the time or energy to do it) is that the current redirect of Claim (legal) to cause of action needs to be canceled and an article should be developed there on the concept of the "claim" outside the United States. For example, in several countries, the equivalent of the American "complaint" is the "statement of claim," and what Americans call allegations are called "particulars of claim." What is very confusing is that Americans instead use "claim" to refer to a single count or cause of action within a lawsuit. --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement

"Indigent judgment-proof defendants are no longer imprisoned; debtor's prisons have been outlawed by statute, constitutional amendment, or international human rights treaties in the vast majority of common law jurisdictions"...is this part of the section necessary for the content and understanding of this section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolread (talk • contribs) 20:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The entire lead section is a disastrous mess

It needs to be torn up and rewritten from scratch, but I don't have the three hours that would take right now nor the interest in undertaking that project. Right now it reads like it was written by five separate people of whom at least one is not a native speaker of English and three of which are not law-trained. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just took care of this. Seven years later. The rest of the article is still a mess, though. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History

No mention of the History or origins of Lawsuit? Come on wiki I thought you knew better then that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.3.197.223 (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Civil court" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Civil court and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 2#Civil court until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 11:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Civil Court" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Civil Court and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 30#Civil Court until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. eviolite (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

worldwide view?

is the word "Lawsuit" applies in worldwide? because there is a banner that such word only applies to united states context, and therefore unable to know the difference is other countries regarding the word "Lawsuit". i hope anyone can find any underlying problem related to word "lawsuit" that had not seen worldwide. correct me if i am wrong. 2404:8000:1027:85F6:1193:21A2:D1B3:FBAD (talk) 11:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two etymology sections

why are there two etymology sections? 50.117.138.19 (talk) 02:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology Etymollgy

The heading Etymology appears twice with differing content. 76.131.229.171 (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]