Restraining Letterman, frivolously

From “Vic” in the Volokh comments, on the furor over that temporary restraining order against David Letterman [typos cleaned up]: I think this illustrates the problem with trying to enumerate how many lawsuits are frivolous. Most attempts at enumerating the amount of frivolous lawsuits have focused on asking judges about their perception of the number […]

From “Vic” in the Volokh comments, on the furor over that temporary restraining order against David Letterman [typos cleaned up]:

I think this illustrates the problem with trying to enumerate how many lawsuits are frivolous.

Most attempts at enumerating the amount of frivolous lawsuits have focused on asking judges about their perception of the number of frivolous lawsuits that pass through their corthouse. And the judges say: a trivial amount. I have always felt that the reason this number is said to be trivial is that the judge who allows a garbage lawsuit to go to trial, when he/she could have stopped it from proceeding further, is not going to say: Yeah, it was frivolous, but I didn’t want to throw it out when I could have.

Also David Kopel examines the question of whether it’s now illegal for Letterman to possess a gun (Volokh, Dec. 22). Update Jan. 2 (judge lifts order).

Comments are closed.