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:
- The Boston bombers and our immigration sieve
- Chevron-Ecuador and Steven Donziger update
- M&A challenges and attorneys' fees
- Again with the myth of the "pro-business" court
- What media bias? National Magazine Award division
- Mac Donald on stop-and-frisk trial
- Ezra Klein unfair to Scalia
- Courts beginning to reject M&A strike suits
- On WNYC today to discuss line sitters and the Supreme Court
- Class action settlements in the news
- Copland on magnet courts
- Ledbetter again
- More on Texas anti-coupon law
- What the frack?
- Terrance Williams, murderer, in the New York Times
![]() |
Rafael Mangual Project Manager, Legal Policy rmangual@manhattan-institute.org |
![]() |
Communications Manhattan Institute communications@manhattan-institute.org |