knottybynature
KnottyByNature
knottybynature

Yeah...no judge is letting any of that get asked. If it’s not directly relevant to the alleged criminal act or a (legal) defense, it’s not going to be allowed.

Market, region and even dealer incentives can vary quite a bit. Also, inventory age can be a great motivating factor- dealers that sell more cars (or at least move them quicker) often get preference in allocation of more desirable cars, so if a dealer in Paducah has a “dirt common” car that’s been sitting for a while,

Actually, it works “better” this way. In every state I know of, if one party drafted a contract (or presented the other party with a preprinted contract) ambiguity in a contract is interpreted in favor of the non-drafting party. In my state, a similar argument applies for factual mistake- if the dealer presented you

I am a recovering consumer class action attorney, both sides at various points. I left because if my senior attorney agreed to another claims-made settlement as plaintiff counsel (for non-attorneys, the ones you have to fill out a form to get- response rates are dismal) I was going to knife him.

Yes. And it really is straight demeaning in a lot of ways. TBH, I was really disappointed with the entire regime when the Bills cheerleader thing came out, and I was glad they pulled the plug.

Since it was a settlement, we don’t know how the attorneys got paid. For most cases like this, the attorneys are paid separately- hour and wage cases usually allow you to tack attorneys fees on top of the amount of damages, and most class actions don’t have attorneys fees taken out of the damages fund. Did the

That’s exactly what a Terrorist Rodent Sympathyzer would say...

“Badgering a Dimwit” is one of our national sports, thank you very much.

Column A, please meet Column B

But it was a nice car....

He wishes for only that which every other driver wishes for: to retire to Stockholm and design a currency for dogs and cats to use.

Myle is a liar.

However, when asked for comment, the shark noted that its assailant was both “freaky” and “fast”.

It’s cute that in the age of the AHCA, you think you will outlive these assholes just because you are significantly younger. 

I wouldn’t call the ruling “irrelevant” for the civil case at all.  

Three Words: Chevy. Monte. Carlo.

“Humping the shark”: to fail completely and yet still be insanely, undeservedly proud.

In the jurisdictions in which I’ve practiced, a criminal conviction for the same conduct underlying the civil action is taken as already proven. So instead of having to put on evidence all over again to show Hernandez killed Lloyd, the plaintiffs can fast-forward to damages.