A group in California alleged that these transfers were harming users - and the jury agreed. Now there is a separate lawsuit for the other 49 US states.
I hate that this is how our legal system has evolved. Trial courts mean nothing when a corporation loses, because invariably an appeal is filed, and if the circuit court upholds a ruling, well, time to talk to SCOTUS.
Not at all … it’s just that corporations, unwilling to take no for an answer, have functionally unlimited funds to throw toward several rounds of escalating court cases while defendants … don’t. It creates an inherently lopsided situation the legal system wasn’t explicitly designed for, but now this is just standard.
Companies walk into these trials essentially seeing the first round as a rehearsal.
Doesn’t the appellate court only accept the case if there’s an issue with the ruling in a lower court? It’s absolutely loaded, but it’s hard to see an alternative without giving up the right to appeal.
Not the ruling itself, but corporations file all sorts of motions before and during the initial trial specifically so that if a motion is denied, voila! Now the jury verdict and compensation decision isn’t what they’re challenging, but rather technical aspects from rulings by the judge overseeing the trial court … admission or inadmission of evidence is always a popular one.
To suggest that anyone else has the sort of law firms on retainer to play this game all the way to the top is folly. It’s just another way in which the system is rigged.
I hate that this is how our legal system has evolved. Trial courts mean nothing when a corporation loses, because invariably an appeal is filed, and if the circuit court upholds a ruling, well, time to talk to SCOTUS.
You’d prefer to lose the right to appeal?
Not at all … it’s just that corporations, unwilling to take no for an answer, have functionally unlimited funds to throw toward several rounds of escalating court cases while defendants … don’t. It creates an inherently lopsided situation the legal system wasn’t explicitly designed for, but now this is just standard.
Companies walk into these trials essentially seeing the first round as a rehearsal.
Doesn’t the appellate court only accept the case if there’s an issue with the ruling in a lower court? It’s absolutely loaded, but it’s hard to see an alternative without giving up the right to appeal.
Not the ruling itself, but corporations file all sorts of motions before and during the initial trial specifically so that if a motion is denied, voila! Now the jury verdict and compensation decision isn’t what they’re challenging, but rather technical aspects from rulings by the judge overseeing the trial court … admission or inadmission of evidence is always a popular one.
To suggest that anyone else has the sort of law firms on retainer to play this game all the way to the top is folly. It’s just another way in which the system is rigged.