A New York Times article on possible loser-pays legislation, unable to determine the actual content of the legislation, still manages to find a defense lawyer, a plaintiffs' lawyer, and a law professor to speak out against the bill, without anyone being asked to make the case for the bill. If a Texas legislator's op-ed on the subject is any clue—"A plaintiff should be required to pay the defendant's legal fees in cases where a court determines that a lawsuit is groundless or where a jury determines a suit is frivolous"—the bill will be pretty weak gruel without an expansion of the definition of "frivolous."
Texas considering loser pays
Related Entries:
- Federal constitutional challenge to Texas tort reform rejected
- What media bias? - Romney's car elevator
- ยง 1920 and e-discovery costs
- Around the web, February 21
- What media bias? Freddie Mac edition
- Speaking of NY Times bias...
- NY Times partisan hackery department: filibuster division
- Setback for Chevron in fraudulent Ecuador litigation
- Reuters fact check
- New victims of the Rothstein Ponzi scheme
- San Francisco sick leave followup
- Wherein George Soros wastes his money
- The deportation of Jakadrien Turner
- Madison County's controversial asbestos litigation system under fire yet again
- Trask on Prakash
![]() |
Rafael Mangual Project Manager, Legal Policy rmangual@manhattan-institute.org |
![]() |
Communications Manhattan Institute communications@manhattan-institute.org |