• American Bar Association
• Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL)
• Center for Constitutional Litigation
• Center for Justice & Democracy
• Civil Justice Foundation
• National Association of Trial Lawyer Executives (NATLE)
• The Roscoe Pound Institute
• Public Justice

Contact Us

• Alberta Civil Trial Lawyers Association
• Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (England)
• Atlantic Provinces Trial Lawyers Association
• Australian Lawyers Alliance
• Australian Plaintiff Lawyers Association
• Canadian Provincial Trial Lawyers Associations
• Ontario Trial Lawyers Association
• Pan-European Organization of Personal Injury Lawyers (PEOPIL)
• Saskatchewan Trial Lawyers Association
• Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2007)

Olin Levi Warner, Research holding the torch of knowledge (1896). Library of Congress Thomas Jefferson Building, Washington, D.C.

Look up research in
Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Research is defined as human activity based on intellectual application in the investigation of matter. The primary aim for applied research is discovering, interpreting, and the development of methods and systems for the advancement of human knowledge on a wide variety of scientific matters of our world and the universe. Research can use the scientific method, but need not do so.

Scientific research relies on the application of the scientific method, a harnessing of curiosity. This research provides scientific information and theories for the explanation of the nature and the properties of the world around us. It makes practical applications possible. Scientific research is funded by public authorities, by charitable organisations and by private groups, including many companies. Scientific research can be subdivided into different classifications according to their academic and application disciplines.

Historical research is embodied in the historical method.

The term research is also used to describe an entire collection of information about a particular subject.

Contact Us

Basic research (also called fundamental or pure research) has as its primary objective the advancement of knowledge and the theoretical understanding of the relations among variables (see statistics). It is exploratory and often driven by the researcher’s curiosity, interest, and intuition. Therefore, it is sometimes conducted without any practical end in mind, although it may have unexpected results pointing to practical applications. The terms “basic” or “fundamental” indicate that, through theory generation, basic research provides the foundation for further, sometimes applied research. As there is no guarantee of short-term practical gain, researchers may find it difficult to obtain funding for basic research.

Examples of questions asked in basic research:

• Does string theory provide physics with a grand unification theory?
• Which aspects of genomes explain organismal complexity?
• Is it possible to prove or disprove Goldbach's conjecture? (i.e., that every even integer greater than 2 can be written as the sum of two, not necessarily distinct primes)

Traditionally, basic research was considered as an activity that preceded applied research, which in turn preceded development into practical applications. Recently, these distinctions have become much less clear-cut, and it is sometimes the case that all stages will intermix. This is particularly the case in fields such as biotechnology and electronics, where fundamental discoveries may be made alongside work intended to develop new products, and in areas where public and private sector partners collaborate in order to develop greater insight into key areas of interest. For this reason, some now prefer the term frontier research. ...

Contact Us

Contact Us

Generally, research is understood to follow a certain structural process. Though step order may vary depending on the subject matter and researcher, the following steps are usually part of most formal research, both basic and applied:

A common misunderstanding is that by this method a hypothesis can be proven or tested. Generally a hypothesis is used to make predictions that can be tested by observing the outcome of an experiment. If the outcome is inconsistent with the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is rejected. However, if the outcome is consistent with the hypothesis, the experiment is said to support the hypothesis. This careful language is used because researchers recognize that alternative hypotheses may also be consistent with the observations. In this sense, a hypothesis can never be proven, but rather only supported by surviving rounds of scientific testing and, eventually, becoming widely thought of as true (or better, predictive), but this is not the same as it having been proven. A useful hypothesis allows prediction and within the accuracy of observation of the time, the prediction will be verified. As the accuracy of observation improves with time, the hypothesis may no longer provide an accurate prediction. In this case a new hypothesis will arise to challenge the old, and to the extent that the new hypothesis makes more accurate predictions than the old, the new will supplant it.

Contact Us

The historical method comprises the techniques and guidelines by which historians use historical sources and other evidence to research and then to write history. There are various history guidelines commonly used by historians in their work, under the headings of external criticism, internal criticism, and synthesis. This includes higher criticism and textual criticism. Though items may vary depending on the subject matter and researcher, the following concepts are usually part of most formal historical research:

Contact Us

The goal of the research process is to produce new knowledge, which takes three main forms (although, as previously discussed, the boundaries between them may be fuzzy):

• Exploratory research, which structures and identifies new problems
• Constructive research, which develops solutions to a problem
• Empirical research, which tests the feasibility of a solution using empirical evidence

Research can also fall into two distinct types:

• Primary research
• Secondary research

Research methods used by scholars include:

Research is often conducted using the hourglass model. The hourglass model starts with a broad spectrum for research, focusing in on the required information through the methodology of the project (like the neck of the hourglass), then expands the research in the form of discussion and results.

Contact Us

Academic publishing describes a system that is necessary in order for academic scholars to peer review the work and make it available for a wider audience. The 'system', which is probably disorganised enough not to merit the title, varies widely by field, and is also always changing, if often slowly. Most academic work is published in journal article or book form. In publishing, STM publishing is an abbreviation for academic publications in science, technology, and medicine.

Most established academic fields have their own journals and other outlets for publication, though many academic journals are somewhat interdisciplinary, and publish work from several distinct fields or subfields. The kinds of publications that are accepted as contributions of knowledge or research vary greatly between fields.

Academic publishing is undergoing major changes, emerging from the transition from the print to the electronic format. Business models are different in the electronic environment. Since about the early 1990s, licensing of electronic resources, particularly journals, has been very common. Presently, a major trend, particularly with respect to scholarly journals, is open access. There are two main forms of open access: open access publishing, in which the articles or the whole journal is freely available from the time of publication, and self-archiving, where the author makes a copy of their own work freely available on the web.

Contact Us

Most funding for scientific research comes from two major sources, corporations (through research and development departments) and government (primarily through universities and in some cases through military contractors). Many senior researchers (such as group leaders) spend more than a trivial amount of their time applying for grants for research funds. These grants are necessary not only for researchers to carry out their research, but also as a source of merit. Some faculty positions require that the holder has received grants from certain institutions, such as the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). Government-sponsored grants (e.g. from the NIH, the National Health Service in Britain or any of the European research councils) generally have a high status.

Contact Us

The word research derives from the French recherche, from rechercher, to search closely where "chercher" means "to search"; its literal meaning is 'to investigate thoroughly'.

Contact Us

Academic conference Advertising Research Creativity techniques Demonstrative evidence Due Diligence Empirical research European Charter for Researchers Internet research Innovation Lab notebook List of fields of doctoral studies

At Wikiversity, you can learn about: Research Marketing research Open research Operations research Original research Participatory action research Psychological research methods Research and development Social research Empirical evidence Conceptual framework

Contact Us

Contact Us

• Research jobs & research-related social networking
• The US National Library of Medicine
• The Italian Association for Research
• The Geneva Association (also known as the International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics)
• Industrial Research Institute
• Research Methods Institute
• European Industrial Research Management Association
• The EvaluationWiki
• Directory and Ranking of 7000 Research Centers worldwide

• This page was last modified on 16 November 2008, at 18:37.
• All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
  Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
  
• Privacy policy
• About Wikipedia
• Disclaimers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Content Management Interoperability Services (CMIS) is a proposed standard consisting of a set of Web services for sharing information among disparate content repositories that seeks to ensure interoperability for people and applications using multiple content repositories. EMC, IBM, Microsoft, Alfresco, Open Text, SAP and Oracle have joined forces to propose CMIS, the first Web services technical specification for exchanging content with and between Enterprise Content Management (ECM) systems. The proposed standard has been registered for public comment with OASIS.

More specifically, Content Management Interoperability Services (CMIS) is a technical specification domain model (data and services) for interacting with an ECM repository via Web Services. It provides a content management domain-specific data model, a set of generic services that act on that data model and several protocol bindings for these services, including: SOAP and Representational State Transfer (REST)/(Atom).

Contact Us

CMIS specification provides a Web services interface that:

• Is designed to work over existing repositories enabling customers to build and leverage applications against multiple repositories -- unlocking content they already have
• Decouples Web services and content from the content management repository, enabling customers to manage content independently
• Provides common Web services and Web 2.0 interfaces to dramatically simplify application development
• Is development platform and language agnostic
• Supports composite application development and mash-up “on the glass” by the business or IT analyst
• Grows the ISV and developer community

Contact Us

For more information, and to download a preview copy of the CMIS technical specification draft, visit any of the following websites of these contributing vendors:

• Alfresco [1]
• EMC [2]
• IBM [3]
• Microsoft [4]

Contact Us

The initial work of developing the momentum and use cases that led to the CMIS standard was conducted by the iECM Initiative sponsored by AIIM. This ongoing project to foster interoperability among ECM systems is supported by the collaborative efforts of governmental, commercial, vendor, and consulting organizations.

Contact Us

Contact Us

• Enterprise Content Management (ECM)
• Alfresco (ECM product from Alfresco)
• Documentum (ECM product from EMC)
• IBM ECM (ECM products from IBM)
• IBM FileNet (ECM products from IBM)
• Microsoft SharePoint (ECM product from Microsoft)
• Open Text ECM (ECM products from Open Text)
• Oracle ECM (ECM products from Oracle]
• Sense/Net 6.0 (.NET based Open source Portal/ECM product from Sense/Net )

Contact Us

• CMIS Introduction Video by EMC with Razmik Abnous, CTO
• CMIS Technical Overview, Part 1 by EMC with Dr. David Choy
• CMIS Technical Overview, Part 2 by EMC with Dr. David Choy
• CMIS Application Scenarios by EMC
• View CMIS Webcast by EMC with Craig Randall, Software Architect
• CMIS Prototype for IBM FileNet

Contact Us

• The Commoditization of Content Management? by Mark Lewis
• Content Management Interoperability Services (CMIS) – Another SharePoint Desilofication Solution? by Andrew Chapman
• CMIS and Atom/AtomPub by Corneilia Davis
• CMIS -- It's Not JAS by Chuck Hollis
• CMIS - Content Management Interoperability Services by Craig Randall
• CMIS: The new Lingua Franca of ECM? by Kas Thomas
• No REST in CMIS by Roy T. Fielding

• This page was last modified on 12 November 2008, at 12:38.
• All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
  Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
  
• Privacy policy
• About Wikipedia
• Disclaimers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wills, trusts and estates

Part of the common law series

Wills

Wills (legal history) Joint wills and mutual wills Will contract · Codicil Holographic will · Oral will

Sections Attestation clause Residuary clause Incorporation by reference

Contest Testamentary capacity Undue influence Insane delusion · Fraud

Property disposition Lapse and anti-lapse Ademption · Abatement Acts of independent significance Elective share Pretermitted heir

Trusts

Express · Constructive Resulting

Common types Bare · Discretionary Accumulation and Maintenance Interest in possession Charitable · Purpose · Incentive

Other types Protective · Spendthrift Life insurance · Remainder Life interest Reversionary interest Honorary · Asset-protection Special needs (Supplemental Needs)

Governing doctrines Pour-over will Cy-près doctrine

Estate administration

Intestacy · Testator · Probate Power of appointment Simultaneous death · Slayer rule Disclaimer of interest

Related topics

Living will (advance directives) Totten trust

Other common law areas

Contract · Tort · Property Criminal law · Evidence

v • d • e

A spendthrift trust is a trust that is created for the benefit of a person (often because he or she is unable to control spending) that gives an independent trustee full authority to make decisions as to how the trust funds may be spent for the benefit of the beneficiary. Creditors of the beneficiary generally cannot reach the funds in the trust, and the funds are not actually under the control of the beneficiary.

The creator of a trust (whether or not it is a spendthrift trust) is sometimes called the "trustor," "grantor," or "settlor" of the trust. A trust often will not be treated as a spendthrift trust unless the trust agreement contains language showing that the creator intended the trust to qualify as spendthrift. This is what is known as a spendthrift clause or spendthrift provision.

A spendthrift provision in an irrevocable trust prevents creditors from attaching the interest of the beneficiary in the trust before that interest (cash or property) is actually distributed to him or her. Most well drafted irrevocable trusts contain spendthrift provisions even though the beneficiaries are not known to be spendthrifts. This is because such a provision protects the trust and the beneficiary in the event a beneficiary is sued and a judgment creditor attempts to attach the beneficiary's interest in the trust.

Contact Us

For example, the Texas Property Code provides:

A clause in the terms of a trust agreement that complies with the above-quoted statute is an example of what the law calls an "anti-alienation provision."

To continue with the example of the Texas law, the Texas Property Code further provides:

The above-quoted language essentially means that a trust instrument does not (at least, in Texas) have to contain complex legal jargon to qualify the trust as "spendthrift"; simply using the word "spendthrift" in the trust document may be sufficient.

Contact Us

Some creditors may compel payment out of the trust - particularly those who supply the beneficiary with "necessaries" (usually food and shelter, but sometimes clothing and transportation, if these are not extravagant). Most jurisdictions also permit the invasion of spendthrift trust assets to satisfy awards of child support and alimony.

Contact Us

A trust created by an individual for his or her own benefit is sometimes called a "self-settled trust." If the creator of a self-settled trust is also a beneficiary of the trust, a particular problem in the context of protection of creditors and prevention of fraud is presented: the danger that the creator of the trust is trying to defraud creditors.

Contact Us

To prevent individuals from creating trusts to defeat their own creditors, the laws of most states provide that a spendthrift clause in a trust document does not protect the beneficiary to the extent that the beneficiary is also the person who created the trust. For example, Texas law provides:

Further, laws in some states (like Texas) are worded so broadly that anyone transferring property to the trust might be deemed to be a "creator" (i.e., settlor, grantor, or trustor), not merely the person or persons who originally set up the trust.

Contact Us

However, a few states have changed their laws to provide that a person may create a self-settled spendthrift trust (i.e., a spendthrift trust for his or her own benefit). Such trusts are sometimes informally called "Alaska trusts," as Alaska was a pioneer in allowing this kind of spendthrift trust. However, because of the danger of the misuse of Alaska trusts to defraud creditors, the legality of such trusts (to the extent that they purport to protect the trust share of a beneficiary who is also a creator of the trust) is uncertain in the states not allowing self-settled spendthrift trusts.

Nevada changed its laws, effective October 1, 1999, to provide even superior self-settled spendthrift trust laws to those of Alaska. Nevada's law generally protects the trust creator two years after transferring assets to the trust, whereas Alaska law generally requires a four-year waiting period to obtain the protection.

Contact Us

• This page was last modified on 12 October 2008, at 22:26.
• All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
  Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
  
• Privacy policy
• About Wikipedia
• Disclaimers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contact Us

Wills, trusts and estates

Part of the common law series

Wills

Wills (legal history) Joint wills and mutual wills Will contract · Codicil Holographic will · Oral will

Sections Attestation clause Residuary clause Incorporation by reference

Contest Testamentary capacity Undue influence Insane delusion · Fraud

Property disposition Lapse and anti-lapse Ademption · Abatement Acts of independent significance Elective share Pretermitted heir

Trusts

Express · Constructive Resulting

Common types Bare · Discretionary Accumulation and Maintenance Interest in possession Charitable · Purpose · Incentive

Other types Protective · Spendthrift Life insurance · Remainder Life interest Reversionary interest Honorary · Asset-protection Special needs (Supplemental Needs)

Governing doctrines Pour-over will Cy-près doctrine

Estate administration

Intestacy · Testator · Probate Power of appointment Simultaneous death · Slayer rule Disclaimer of interest

Related topics

Living will (advance directives) Totten trust

Other common law areas

Contract · Tort · Property Criminal law · Evidence

v • d • e

Joint wills and mutual wills are closely related terms used in the law of wills to describe two types of testamentary writing that may be executed by a married couple to ensure that their property is disposed of identically. Neither should be confused with mirror wills which means two separate, identical wills, which may or may not also be mutual wills.

A joint will is a single document executed by more than one person (typically husband and wife), making which has effect in relation to each signatory's property on his or her death (unless he or she revokes (cancels) the will during his or her lifetime). Although a single document, the joint will is a separate distribution of property by each executor (signatory) and will be treated as such on admission to probate. Mutual wills are any two (or more) wills which are mutually binding, such that following the first death the survivor is constrained in his or her ability to dispose of his or her property by the agreement he or she made with the deceased. Historically such wills had an important role in ensuring property passed to children of a marriage rather than a widow or widower's spouse on a remarriage.

The recognition of these forms varies widely from one jurisdiction to the next. Some permit both, some will not recognize joint wills, and many have established a presumption that one or both of these forms creates a will contract.

A joint will differs substantively from a mutual will in that the former is not intended to be irrevocable or to express a mutual intention; it is merely an administrative convenience. A will may be both joint (on one document) and mutual (see below).

Mutual wills have four basic requirements and a strict standard for enforceability:

1. The agreement must be made in a particular form.
2. The agreement must be contractual in effect. (Contrast Re Goodchild [1996] 1 WLR and Lewis v Cotton [2001] 2 NZLR)
3. The agreement must be intended to be irrevocable.
4. The surviving party must have intended the will to reflect the agreement.

Mutual wills are rare, and often another form of constructive trust is imposed (See Healey v Browne [2002] 2 WTLR 849). It is also noted (see Carnwath J in Re Goodchild ibid) that a mutual will is a technical legal device requiring an intention to form a binding agreement and that this often differs from the "loose moral obligation" presupposed as binding by the layman.

[

Contact Us

The major common law authority in this area is Re Oldham [1925] Ch. 75. This discussed the 18th century case of Dufour v Pereira which first evinced the doctrine, in which Lord Camden remarked "he, that dies first, does by his death carry the agreement on his part into execution". Astbury J in Oldham distinguished mutual wills from joint wills - that they are made in identical terms "does not go nearly far enough". There must be "an arrangement proved to the satisfaction of the court" and this must be a binding, irrevocable agreement.

In Re Cleaver [1981] 1 WLR Nourse J took a less strict approach in finsing that identical wills went towards proving the existence of an agreement, however this approach was rejected in Re Goodchild [1996] 1 WLR where Carnwath J stated the importance of having specific evidence as to the testator's mutual intentions at the time of execution of the wills. Carnwath J approved the "floating trust" analogy, first proposed by Dixon J in Birmingham v Renfrew [1937] CLR, which holds that the law will give effect to the intention (to create a mutually binding will) by imposing a floating trust which becomes irrevocable after the death of the first testatot and crystallises after the death of the second.

In the Court of Appeal decision in Goodchild Legatt LJ approved the dicta of Carnwath J and added that "for the doctrine to apply there must be a contract". This approach raises problems as will be seen below. However, the contractual requirement has been rejected in other decisions, or at least diluted. Dixon J in Birmingham, commenting on Dufour v Pereira, noted that it is the trust arising from the course of conduct which is enforced, not the contract itself. This approach has received further credence in the decision of Blanchard J in Lewis v Cotton. "A formal legal contract is not needed. A contract made without formality is enough...The crucial factor must be that the terms of the mutual engagement... are sufficiently certain that the Court can see its way to enforce them." The importance of this approach is, as Blanchard J notes, that the focus is on the obligation not to deal with property contrary to the agreement rather than on non-revocation. This therefore covers situations such as that in Healey v Browne where there has been an inter vivos transfer to avoid the will.

In Healey v Browne a husband transferred assets jointly to himself and his son after the death of his wife. Although there was found to be no mutual will (Donaldson QC adopted the contractual requirement), he considered that where there was a valid mutual will the second testator is free to use the assets for his own beneficial interest as long as it is not calculated to defeat the agreement: "Where the fiduciary duty is breached by such a voluntary disposition inter vivos of the property in question, the "crystallisation" of the floating obligation must occur at the moment of that disposition." (Note that Donaldson QC imposed a secret trust in the circumstances which reduced the son's interest to 50%, that being the interest held by the husband)

[ed

Contact Us

it] Revocability

Another issue as regards mutual wills is the question of revocability. In Re Hobley Charles Aldous QC held that there could be either unilateral or mutual revocation provided it occurred during the lifetime of both testators. However, the problem with this approach is that unilateral revocation is against the general principle of contract. Several explanations for this could be proffered. Firstly, there could be an implicit term that the agreement is revocable. Secondly, it could be conceptually viewed that the agreement takes on the revocable nature of the will to which it relates. Thirdly, as the doctrine is based on detrimental reliance, the agreement only concretized on the death of the other party. Fourthly, one could apply the unconscionability rationale that unjust enrichment could only be complete when one party takes a benefit under the will of the other party.

Re Hobley adopts the unconscionability rationale such that the imposition of a constructive trust is only justified by unconscionability, therefore there must be detrimental reliance. This would appear to be analogous to the doctrine of estoppel. Another consequence of this approach is that the trust must come into existence before the death of the first testator as otherwise the subject matter of the trust would be uncertain and could possible be avoided by inter vivos dispositions.

Another point of controversy was whether or not the second testator had to benefit from the initial disposition. Commentators had argued that this was the case as if the second testator did not benefit the unjust enrichment argument would be untenable. However, Re Dale [1994] Ch held that no benefit was necessary. Morritt J reasoned that although the aim of the doctrine was to prevent fraud on the first testator this did not require a corresponding benefit for the second testator. Friel (1996 1 CPLJ) argued against this saying that the trust should not be imposed on the property but rather on the implementation of the contract between the parties. An excellent rebuke to this approach and support for the view in Re Dale is to be found in the judgment of Rowles JA in the Court of Appeal (British Columbia) decision in University of Manitoba v Sanderson [1998]. Rowles contended that the doctrine imposes a constructive trust on the survivor because the first to die is considered to have carried out the agreement by her death in reliance on the survivor's promise to act in accordance with the agreement. It is also important to note that these cases do not use the fraud rationale in the conventional sense of deceptive receipt of property. Instead an estoppel argument based on representation, reliance, detriment and irrevocability is utilised.

Re Hagger [1930] 2 Ch held that the constructive trust comes into existence on the death of the first testator, however this approach was revised in Re Hobley which decided that it must come into existence before the death of the first testator to satisfy the requirement of certainty of subject matter.

In the case of Ottaway v Norman [1972] Ch., Brightman J held that a floating obligation attaches to secret trusts: "A valid trust is created in favour of the secondary donee which is in suspense during the lifetime of the donee, but attaches to the estate of the primary donee at the moment of the latter's death." Edward Nugee QC sitting as deputy High Court judge in Re Basham [1986] 1 WLR applied a comparable test in relation to proprietary estoppel. He held that the belief, for detrimental reliance, need not relate to a clearly identified piece of property. Following Cleaver and Birmingham, if it is established by cogent evidence that the intention was to leave the entire estate, proprietary estoppel will enforce that intention. (It is interesting to recall that Edward Nugee was counsel in Ottaway v Norman and that Brightman J adopted his floating obligation theory)

• This page was last modified on 9 September 2008, at 15:23.
• All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
  Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
  
• Privacy policy
• About Wikipedia
• Disclaimers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

T contact us and removed. (June 2007)

T contact us

In law a lawsuit is a civil action brought before a court in which the party commencing the action, the plaintiff, seeks a legal or equitable remedy. One or more defendants are required to respond to the plaintiff complaint. If the plaintiff is successful, judgment will be given in the plaintiff's favor, and a range of court orders may be issued to enforce a right, award damages, or impose an injunction to prevent an act or compel an act. A declaratory judgment may be issued to prevent future legal disputes.

A lawsuit may involve dispute resolution of private law issues between individuals, business entities or non-profit organizations. A lawsuit may also enable the government to be treated as if it were a private party in a civil case, as plaintiff or defendant regarding an injury, or may provide the government with a civil cause of action to enforce certain laws.

The conduct of a lawsuit is called litigation.

contact us

Rules of criminal or civil procedure govern the conduct of a lawsuit in the common law adversarial system of dispute resolution. Procedural rules are additionally constrained/informed by separate statutory laws, case law, and constitutional provisions that define the rights of the parties to a lawsuit (see especially due process), though the rules will generally reflect this legal context on their face. The details of procedure will differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and often from court to court within the same jurisdiction. The rules are very important for litigants to know, however, because they dictate the timing and progression of the lawsuit – what may be filed and when to get what result. Failure to comply with the procedural rules can result in serious limitations in conducting the trial or even dismissal of the lawsuit.

Though the majority of lawsuits are settled and never even get to trial, they can expand into a very complicated process. This is particularly true in federal systems, where a federal court may be applying state law (e.g., the Erie doctrine in the United States) or vice versa, or one state applying the law of another, and where it additionally may not be clear which level (or location) of court actually has jurisdiction over the claim or personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Domestic courts are also often called upon to apply foreign law, or to act upon foreign defendants, over whom they may not, as a practical matter, even have the ability to enforce a judgment if the defendant's assets are outside their reach.

Lawsuits become additionally complicated as more parties become involved (see joinder). Within a "single" lawsuit, there can be any number of claims and defenses (all based on numerous laws) between any number of plaintiffs or defendants, who each can bring any number of cross-claims and counterclaims against each other, and even bring additional parties into the suit on either side after it progresses. However, courts typically have some power to separate out claims and parties into separate suits if it is more efficient to do so, such as if there is not a sufficient overlap of factual issues between the various claims.

contact us

The following is a generalized description of how a lawsuit may proceed in a common law jurisdiction:

contact us

A lawsuit begins when a complaint is filed with the court This complaint will state that one or more plaintiffs is seeking damages or equitable relief from one or more stated defendants, and will identify the legal and factual bases for doing so. The clerk of a court signs a summons, which is then served by the plaintiff upon the defendant, together with a copy of the complaint. This service notifies the defendants that they are being sued and that they have a specific time limit to file a response. By providing a copy of the complaint, the service also notifies the defendants of the nature of the claims. Once the defendants are served with the summons and complaint, they have a time limit to file an answer identifying their defenses to the plaintiff's claims, including any challenges to the court's jurisdiction, and any counterclaims they wish to assert against the plaintiff.

In many courts, a lawsuit begins when one or more plaintiffs properly serve a summons and complaint upon the defendant(s). In these states, the plaintiffs need not file the complaint with the district court clerk to commence the lawsuit. As in other court, the defendant(s) will have a specific time limit during which they may file their answer.

If the defendant chooses to file an answer within the time permitted, he/she must respond to each of the plaintiffs' allegations by admitting the allegation, denying it, or pleading a lack of sufficient information to admit or deny the allegation. At the time he files an answer, the defendant will also raise all "affirmative" defenses he may have. He may also assert any counterclaims for damages or equitable relief against the plaintiff, and in the case of "compulsory counterclaims," must do so or risk having the counterclaim barred in any subsequent proceeding. The defendant may also file a "third party complaint" in which he seeks to join another party or parties in the action if he believes those parties may be liable for some or all of the plaintiff's damages. Filing an answer "joins the cause" and moves the case into the pre-trial phase.

Instead of filing an answer within the time specified in the summons, the defendant can choose to dispute the validity of the complaint by filing one or more motions to dismiss. The motion must be filed within the time period specified in the summons for an answer. If all such motions are denied by the trial court, and the defendant loses on all appeals from such denials (if that option is available), then the defendant must file an answer.

Usually the pleadings are drafted by a lawyer, but in many courts persons can file papers and represent themselves, which is called appearing pro se. Many courts have a pro se clerk to assist people without lawyers.

contact us

The early stages of the lawsuit may involve initial disclosures of evidence by each party and discovery, which is the ordered exchange of evidence and statements between the parties based on what they each expect to argue during the actual trial. Discovery is meant to eliminate surprises and clarify what the lawsuit is about, and perhaps to make a party realize they should settle or drop the claim, all before wasting court resources. At this point the parties may also engage in pretrial motion filing in order to exclude or include particular legal or factual issues before trial, by blocking the other party from presenting a particular witness or arguing a particular legal theory.

At the close of discovery, the parties may pick a jury and then have a trial by jury. Or, the case may proceed as a bench trial heard only by the judge, if the parties waive a jury trial, or if the right to a jury trial is not guaranteed for their particular claim (such as those under equity in the U.S.) or for any lawsuits within their jurisdiction.

contact us

The lawsuit may then proceed similarly to a criminal trial, with each side presenting witnesses and submitting evidence, at the close of which the judge or jury renders their decision. Generally speaking, the plaintiff has the burden of proof in making his claims, which means that it is up to him to produce enough evidence to persuade the judge or jury that his claim should succeed. The defendant may have the burden of proof on other issues, however, such as affirmative defenses.

There are numerous motions that either party can file throughout the lawsuit to terminate it "prematurely" – before submission to the judge or jury for final consideration. These motions attempt to persuade the judge, through legal argument and sometimes accompanying evidence, that because there is no reasonable way that the other party could legally win, there is no sense in continuing with the trial. Motions for summary judgment, for example, can usually be brought before, after, or during the actual presentation of the case. Motions can also be brought after the close of a trial to undo a jury verdict that is contrary to law or against the weight of the evidence, or to convince the judge that he should change his decision or grant a new trial.

Also, at any time during this process from the filing of the complaint to the final judgment, the plaintiff may withdraw his complaint and end the whole matter, or the defendant may agree to a settlement, which involves a negotiated award followed also by the plaintiff withdrawing his complaint and the settlement entered into the court record.

contact us

After a final decision has been made, either party or both may appeal from the judgment if they are unhappy with it (and their jurisdiction grants the ability). Even the prevailing party may appeal, if, for example, they wanted an even larger award than was granted. The appellate court (which may be structured as an intermediate appellate court and a higher court will then affirm the judgment, refuse to hear it (which effectively affirms), reverse, or vacate and remand, which involves sending the lawsuit back to the lower trial court to address an unresolved issue, or possibly for a whole new trial. Some lawsuits go up and down the appeals ladder repeatedly before finally being resolved.

contact us

When a final judgment is entered, the plaintiff will likely be barred under res judicata from trying to bring the same or similar claim again against that defendant, or from relitigating any of the issues, even under different legal claims or theories. This prevents a new trial of the same case with a different result, or if the plaintiff won, a repeat trial that merely multiplies the judgment against the defendant.

If the judgment is for the plaintiff, then the defendant must comply under penalty of law with the judgment, which will usually be a monetary award. If the defendant fails to pay, the court has various powers to seize any of the defendant's assets located within its jurisdiction, such as:

• Liens
• Wage garnishment
• Bank account garnishment

If all assets are located elsewhere, the plaintiff must file another suit in the appropriate court to seek enforcement of the other court's previous judgment. This can be a difficult task when crossing from a court in one state or nation to another, though courts tend to grant each other respect when there is not a clear legal rule to the contrary. A defendant who has no assets in any jurisdiction is said to be "judgment-proof." The term is generally a colloquialism to describe an impecunious defendant.

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.

contact us

During the 18th and 19th centuries, it was common for lawyers to speak of bringing an "action" at law and a "suit" in equity. The fusion of common law and equity in the Judicature Acts of 1873 and 1875 led to the collapse of that distinction, so it became possible to speak of a "lawsuit".

In England and Wales the term "claim" is far more common; the person initiating proceedings is called the claimant.

American terminology is slightly different, in that the term "claim" refers only to a particular count (or cause of action) in a lawsuit. Americans also use "claim" to describe a demand filed with an insurer or administrative agency. If the claim is denied, then the claimant (or policyholder or applicant) files a lawsuit with the courts and becomes a plaintiff.

In medieval times, both "action" and "suit" had the approximate meaning of some kind of legal proceeding, but an action terminated when a judgment was rendered, while a suit also included the execution of the judgment.

contact us

contact us

Look up lawsuit in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

• Frivolous litigation
• Lawyer
• List of environmental lawsuits
• Restorative Justice
• Revenge
• Tort reform

• This page was last modified on 21 October 2008, at 05:00.
• All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
  Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
  
• Privacy policy
• About Wikipedia
• Disclaimers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page. (July 2008)

Over 7.2 million adults on probation or parole or incarcerated in jail or prison at yearend 2006. That's about 3.2% of the U.S. adult population, or 1 in every 31 adults.

contact us

 Duration of incarceration