prisoner’s judgement?
My last post of the night! The amount the court awards to the prisoner suing for what was done to him (separate from the attorneys’ fees).
Despite my best intentions I’m up still here! Don’t want to let go of the day. Hope you all get some good rest!
😔 I think I was born this way.
Quite an riveting game going on in the Chess thread at the moment.
40-Love last I heard.
I’m often up late. Need to sleep soon because I need to be someplace early. I often put on something to listen to like an audiobook to help me get to sleep.
Here is a thread for when you’re up late, not many people are on, and you’ve exhausted your open browser tabs.
Amazing. I thought I had it all, but all I had was dahmage.
I don’t listen to music but she’s alright!
Every time I look at that law I get confused. But for your question: the court can “award” an amount it determines appropriate for attorneys’ fees. The question is how much of that award must come out of the prisoner’s judgment.
update: i listened to star wars and lana del rey’s ultraviolence and that was about it.
Glad you landed in one piece.
That is one green-tinted music video. I sense a theme 😉
I’m just so tired of it all.
lla ti dah
The Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision today authored by Gorsuch, Sotomayor wrote dissent joined by the other liberal Justices. Reminds me of the truck driver case that caused so much consternation during Gorsuch’s confirmation hearings. Like that case: it was a matter of statutory interpretation and not a big controversial social issue; involved a sympathetic set of facts; and the law seems like it could almost be read either way.
The basic facts from the link:
The case concerned Charles Murphy, an Illinois inmate badly beaten by prison guards, who crushed his eye socket. Mr. Murphy sued the guards, winning about $307,000 and $108,000 in attorney’s fees.
The question in the case was how to interpret a federal law that says in such cases “a portion of the judgment (not to exceed 25 percent) shall be applied to satisfy the amount of attorney’s fees awarded against the defendant.”
A trial judge ordered Mr. Murphy to pay 10 percent of his award to his lawyers, but an appeals court ruled that the law required the full 25 percent.
I don’t understand, wouldn’t what the attorneys get depend on the agreement made between them and Charles Murphy?
I don’t know much about this topic but this situation only concerns what happens when a court awards attorneys’ fees - which normally means the losing party pays the amount the judge awards for those fees (on top of any judgment).
That amount awarded for fees may be different than the attorneys’ actual bill. There is another part of the law that says the client can agree to pay amounts greater than the court awards but these cases typically involve people who do not have money (and may not get a big judgment).
When the court awards $108,000 we would expect the losing party to pay that. But there is this law that says a portion of the judgment must be used to pay attorneys’ fees. Anything above that would be paid by the losing party.
It looks like a simple law to interpret but it’s tricky when you starting focusing on certain words and thinking about what the intended purpose of the law is.
I identify as a guy in my late 50s. I embrace my assigned age.
FTFM
How that made me feel.
I identify as a guy in my early 20s. I reject my assigned age.
I disagree.
My guesses of the same people.
Mark’s Down On Your Syntax said:
My age is a prime number but I feel inferior as it’s not one of the small ones.
I’ve no idea if these have already been guessed correctly but here’s a few predictaguesses from me:
yhwx = 22
Ender = 29
Warbler = 43
Dahmage = 32
oojason = 45
greenpenguino = 36
Silverwook = 207
Ray = 34
Possessed = 23
Chyron = 27
Mark’s Down On Your Syntax said:
My age is a prime number but I feel inferior as it’s not one of the small ones.
I’ve no idea if these have already been guessed correctly but here’s a few predictaguesses from me:
yhwx = 20
Ender = 44
Warbler = 35
Dahmage = 23
oojason = 37
greenpenguino = 51
Silverwook = 48
Ray = 26
Possessed = 25
Chyron = 32 (going on 12 😉)
Do these numbers correlate to perceived maturity levels?
I’d be down for a game of Risk. Clue, Royal Game of Ur, and Scrabble are good. I’ve had my eye on Jamaica.
I wondered, it didn’t sound like the kind of thing you would mean.
I certainly wouldn’t want to be judged based on the mistakes I’ve made.
Apparently Graham understood how you feel (from an article in a magazine Graham started):
When Watergate came to light, [Graham] was blindsided. He had held Nixon in such high regard for so many years that it was difficult for him to reconcile the character of the man he knew with that of the man heard on the tapes.
“Never, in all the times I was with him, did he use language even close to that,” wrote Graham. “I felt physically sick and went into the seclusion of my study at the back of the house. Inwardly, I felt torn apart.”
“There was a side of Nixon that my father had never seen, and that concerned him,” Franklin Graham explained. “He wondered if he had gotten too close to Nixon, and maybe stepped out of a role he should have really stayed in.”
The President had not confided in him about his mounting troubles. After the full story broke, he all but blocked the evangelist’s access to him during the rest of his presidency.
“I wanted to believe the best about him for as long as I could,” Billy Graham wrote. “When the worst came out, it was nearly unbearable for me.”
Mark’s Down On Your Syntax said:
Porn can be an elective.
Do you get credit even if you’re not in college?
Mark’s Down On Your Syntax said:
I have 127 browser tabs open.
Inevitably it will crash and all those important tabs full of deep insights you meant to look at again will be lost to history. Or maybe you’re the kind of horrible person who opens new tabs for no reason.
Porn can be an addictive.
Mark’s Down On Your Syntax said:
Porn can be an elective.
REPORTED to authorities in the state of Florida.
I’m in England, he’s in Canada.
We ain’t afraid of them!
The Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision today authored by Gorsuch, Sotomayor wrote dissent joined by the other liberal Justices. Reminds me of the truck driver case that caused so much consternation during Gorsuch’s confirmation hearings. Like that case: it was a matter of statutory interpretation and not a big controversial social issue; involved a sympathetic set of facts; and the law seems like it could almost be read either way.
The basic facts from the link:
The case concerned Charles Murphy, an Illinois inmate badly beaten by prison guards, who crushed his eye socket. Mr. Murphy sued the guards, winning about $307,000 and $108,000 in attorney’s fees.
The question in the case was how to interpret a federal law that says in such cases “a portion of the judgment (not to exceed 25 percent) shall be applied to satisfy the amount of attorney’s fees awarded against the defendant.”
A trial judge ordered Mr. Murphy to pay 10 percent of his award to his lawyers, but an appeals court ruled that the law required the full 25 percent.
The way you cut that up I can’t actually tell what the law is.
The article isn’t explicit about it. But the bill says neglect doesn’t include:
(iv) permitting a child, whose basic needs are met and who is of sufficient age and maturity to avoid harm or unreasonable risk of harm, to engage in independent activities, including:
(A) traveling to and from school, including by walking, running, or bicycling;
(B) traveling to and from nearby commercial or recreational facilities;
(C ) engaging in outdoor play;
(D) remaining in a vehicle unattended, except under the conditions described in Subsection 76-10-2202(2);
(E) remaining at home unattended; or
(F) engaging in a similar independent activity.
If Utah Gov. Gary Herbert signs a bill that recently passed both houses of the Utah legislature unanimously, parents in his state will not have to worry about getting arrested for letting their kids play outside or walk to school.
…
Clearly, the laws needed to be clarified. Giving our kids an old-fashioned childhood is not negligence. It should never be considered that. I asked Adrian Moore, a policy expert at the Reason Foundation, to help me draft a law that stated — in a lot more words — “Our kids have the right to some unsupervised time, and parents have the right to give it to them without getting arrested.” As Moore put it, “There are some bureaucrats who think that it’s not safe for kids to do anything other than play in their rooms. That’s crazy. But without a law sometimes the crazies get to decide.”
…
The Arkansas legislature was the first state to vote on this bill a year ago. It sailed through the Senate but hit a wall in the House, stymied by the all-too-familiar fear: What if a child gets kidnapped? The specter of this rarest of crimes (people are more likely to be hit by lightning than be kidnapped) was enough to trigger the backlash.
