[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
From: |
Hyman Rosen |
Subject: |
Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled |
Date: |
Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:32:33 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091204 Thunderbird/3.0 |
On 2/19/2010 3:26 PM, RJack wrote:
For one wrongly decided non-precedential case:
Court vs. crank again.
How many times have you been told
that unverifiable settlement agreements are imaginary?
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_%28litigation%29>
The settlement of the lawsuit defines legal requirements
of the parties, and is often put in force by an order of
the court after a joint stipulation by the parties. In
other situations (as where the claims have been satisfied
by the payment of a certain sum of money) the plaintiff
and defendant can simply file a notice that the case has
been dismissed.
- Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, Hyman Rosen, 2010/02/19
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, RJack, 2010/02/19
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled,
Hyman Rosen <=
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, RJack, 2010/02/19
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, David Kastrup, 2010/02/19
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/02/20
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, David Kastrup, 2010/02/20
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/02/20
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, David Kastrup, 2010/02/20
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/02/20
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, Hyman Rosen, 2010/02/19
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, RJack, 2010/02/19
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, Hyman Rosen, 2010/02/22