Comments on: Connecticut: judges can review fee waivers

By: Ron Miller

Ron Miller — Tue, 22 Oct 2013 17:18:24 +0000

I would be fine with this. But I think there would have to be real checks and balances. Maybe a panel of 3 judges who had to write written opinions in those cases that the reject. I’m not entirely sure I even agree with what I’m saying here because I’m not thinking it through. But it might be possible to fashion something that would make everyone happy (except for the extremists on both sides).

By: gitarcarver

gitarcarver — Fri, 18 Oct 2013 18:44:39 +0000

I have a tendancy to look at this slightly differently.

While this post deals with the waiving of fees, I wonder why the fees are so high to begin with.

By: En Passant

En Passant — Thu, 17 Oct 2013 20:45:45 +0000

From Professor Elliott's Atlantic article, the 1792 Process Act appears to require a preliminary ex parte hearing after filing, akin to a hearing on a demurrer, but on the court's motion since the defendant is as yet unserved. Prof. Elliot notes that the 1938 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure eliminated this rule. It would be interesting to know why that happened.

By: Laura Ferrin

Laura Ferrin — Thu, 17 Oct 2013 20:18:54 +0000

It would come in handy if that was still handled by judges. People will always look for ways to exploit the system.