I'm mostly on the side of the State on this one. A $1 for each parent award was a direct insult to the plaintiffs, and the equivalent of a jury loss. I bet the State wins.
... sorry, you're on the side of the State in that you feel 4th Amendment protections should have an exception for non-emergency child services, and that offering to pay off the lawsuit without admitting guilt or changing policy is protection against having to pay legal fees?
It would seem the jury think the parents are assholes, but that they're assholes who have a valid legal point and whose rights were infringed by the state.
No, I'm on the side of the state in that the Jury chose to award far less (read: no) money to the couple. When you apply damages, that kind of award says "While you were technically correct on the side of the law, we think this lawsuit was pointless and you should get basically nothing for it."
My guess is that we are, as usual, NOT getting the full story here.
The Child Protective Services in the United States need a great deal of overhauling, mind. But on this specific case, with this specific award, the State appears to be legally correct. In the United States, having the other side pay court fees is a punitive measure and not always awarded.
on this specific case, with this specific award, the State appears to be legally correct. In the United States, having the other side pay court fees is a punitive measure and not always awarded.
These two statements do not appear to agree with one another.
While court fees are often part of punitive damages, the State is arguing that they are immune from any such damages because the plaintiffs did not admit defeat, give up on their suit, accept the violation of their rights, and settle out of court when the State of Utah offered to pay them to do so.
This argument does not appear to bear much, if anything at all, to do with whether or not court fees can be awarded in punitive damages.
(And, personally? Their rights were violated, they had to sue to prevent it from happening again to them and to other people, they won. I feel that this *entitles* them to their money back for the cost of winning, because the State was clearly in the wrong and clearly violated their rights, then made no attempt to fix the problem until forced to by a court. Were I on the jury, I suspect I might have given them "court fees and $2", but that's not the point.)
I think that this is (barring something we don't know about this case) a really bad example for me to have to be defending, because overall I agree with you.
Had the jury not awarded them $1 in damages each, I'd be right with you. But that $1 says something. It really really really does. And a judge is going to look at it and say "they didn't think this case had a gigantic amount of merit." And they're going to look at what the State had to pay to defend themselves and..essentially... win their case.
$500,000 isn't going to stop the STate from defending itself.
I see your point about the poor not being able to defend themselves against state infringement of their constitutional rights, but .. if I'm just thinking about the legal merits...
Addendum: Anything else tends to lead to the idea that the only people able to fight over a violation of their rights are those who can afford hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees - meaning that such lawsuits are the sole provenance of the wealthy, making the State effectively immune from retribution for infringing on the rights of the poor.
Asshole or not, they were proven right, and the states excuse for not paying out is bullshit. Also, what did they ask for in the lawsuit? Perhaps they just wanted the practice stopped, and didnt feel a large judgment was necessary? They were found right in a court of law, and the earlier offers were basically shut up and go away.
the earlier offers were made by the state. this judgement was made by a jury. i do see these differently. yes, they did prevail, but they were damaged one dollar each. what's that say about their actual damages? large damages motivate states to change. i'm not sure why the state would change if juries fine it a dollar for breaking the 4th amendment. but that's the jury's assessment of damages sustained by the plaintiff.
the supreme court shot down the school district's desegregation program here in seattle, and now the plaintiffs seek recovery of costs even though they took the case pro bono. kinda odd but ok.
The problem seems to me to boil down to this: the parents wanted this not to happen again to themselves or others (forward-looking), while the legal system is geared towards people looking for redress for the wrongs done to them (backward-looking). If the parents were actually doing this for redress, the legal procedure would be somewhat justified: by refusing the settlements, they were gambling that they could soak the defendant for more. In this case, though, accepting the settlement, any settlement, would not have accomplished their primary purpose.
Now, why the jury chose to award $1 each is uncertain; it may be that the plaintiffs unwisely said that it wasn't about the money, it was about the principle, and that got translated into the judgment; I haven't looked up the transcript.
''The idea behind it is, if we make an offer and you go to trial and get less than the offer, you didn't actually prevail,'' said Assistant Attorney General Matthew Bates. ''You're actually worse off, so we shouldn't have to pay fees [after] the date of the offer.''
Uhm.
I'm having trouble reading this as anything other than "We offered to pay you money to not take us to court, so if you take us to court and get less than we offered you, you really lost. Regardless of the ruling of the court, "prevailing" only reflects whether you'd've made a bigger profit if you'd taken our offer."
"We tried to pay you off and not change our policies. You proved us wrong and forced us to change our policies, so we don't have any obligation to your legal fees"
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-30 06:27 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-30 06:39 pm (UTC)It would seem the jury think the parents are assholes, but that they're assholes who have a valid legal point and whose rights were infringed by the state.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-30 06:44 pm (UTC)My guess is that we are, as usual, NOT getting the full story here.
The Child Protective Services in the United States need a great deal of overhauling, mind. But on this specific case, with this specific award, the State appears to be legally correct. In the United States, having the other side pay court fees is a punitive measure and not always awarded.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-30 07:21 pm (UTC)These two statements do not appear to agree with one another.
While court fees are often part of punitive damages, the State is arguing that they are immune from any such damages because the plaintiffs did not admit defeat, give up on their suit, accept the violation of their rights, and settle out of court when the State of Utah offered to pay them to do so.
This argument does not appear to bear much, if anything at all, to do with whether or not court fees can be awarded in punitive damages.
(And, personally? Their rights were violated, they had to sue to prevent it from happening again to them and to other people, they won. I feel that this *entitles* them to their money back for the cost of winning, because the State was clearly in the wrong and clearly violated their rights, then made no attempt to fix the problem until forced to by a court. Were I on the jury, I suspect I might have given them "court fees and $2", but that's not the point.)
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-31 12:20 am (UTC)Had the jury not awarded them $1 in damages each, I'd be right with you. But that $1 says something. It really really really does. And a judge is going to look at it and say "they didn't think this case had a gigantic amount of merit." And they're going to look at what the State had to pay to defend themselves and..essentially... win their case.
$500,000 isn't going to stop the STate from defending itself.
I see your point about the poor not being able to defend themselves against state infringement of their constitutional rights, but .. if I'm just thinking about the legal merits...
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-31 12:45 am (UTC)No, but $500,000 as the cost of defending yourself *is* going to keep the majority of Americans from defendin themselves.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-30 07:22 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-30 07:47 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-30 10:52 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-30 10:58 pm (UTC)the supreme court shot down the school district's desegregation program here in seattle, and now the plaintiffs seek recovery of costs even though they took the case pro bono. kinda odd but ok.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-30 08:19 pm (UTC)Now, why the jury chose to award $1 each is uncertain; it may be that the plaintiffs unwisely said that it wasn't about the money, it was about the principle, and that got translated into the judgment; I haven't looked up the transcript.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-31 01:25 pm (UTC)At least one comment in the front page made me cringe so badly.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-31 02:51 pm (UTC)Uhm.
I'm having trouble reading this as anything other than "We offered to pay you money to not take us to court, so if you take us to court and get less than we offered you, you really lost. Regardless of the ruling of the court, "prevailing" only reflects whether you'd've made a bigger profit if you'd taken our offer."
Anyone? Help me out?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-31 02:56 pm (UTC)"We tried to pay you off and not change our policies. You proved us wrong and forced us to change our policies, so we don't have any obligation to your legal fees"