- NEW!
by Anonymous on July 25th, 2007
Why was the distinction necessary? When taking out of context it seems trivial, but the difference could be important.
For example, imagine if your city had a problem with people riding dirt bikes on the grass of local parks, so your local legislature passes a law that bans "vehicles in city parks." Now imagine you ride your bike through the park and get cited. Your neighbor rides his skate board and gets cited. The garbage truck goes three feet into the park to pick up trash and gets cited. Another neighbor pushes their child in a stroller and gets cited. These are all violations of the statute, so each person deserves to pay the fine, right?
Well, of course not. This is where the courts come in and interpret what was meant by "vehicle." You may argue that laws should be written more specifically, but legislators can't always predict what people will do.
Here is another example (which is true in many states). Your state passes a law that makes it illegal to have a "video screen capable of receiving a broadcast signal in the view of the driver." This law appears to be very specific, and was intended to prevent drivers from being distracted.
Now here is the problem. The intent was to write a law that prevents drivers from being distracted by watching movies while driving. But the law was written before the proliferation of DVD players and Navigation systems. Therefore, many cops were citing people for having a screen visble with a movie playing, but the movie being played from a DVD (and not a broadcast signal). Thus, the courts had to come in and define exactly what was being prohibited.
Note: A navigation system receives a broadcast system but was not intended to be prohibited. A DVD player does not receive a broadcast signal, but was intended to be prohibited. However, at the time the law was passed, the only onboard video systems regularly used were tv's that picked up channels by antenna.
by Pellinore on June 14th, 2007
There are a lot of struggling lawyers out there with nothing to do but sue
by Smart2 is back! Did you miss me? on October 19th, 2007
Tort reform is the answer, but not many seem willing to pass such legislation. Remember that many lawmakers are attorneys or former attorneys or friends and/or colleagues with attorneys. There are far too many frivilous suits. Just this past week, there was a case involving a lady who claimed to be indigent, was court-appointed an attorney, and later discovered to own five (yes, FIVE) different properties including one beachfront condo which has been vacant for over a year and her own million-dollar residence. She did not prevail on appeal and was ordered to repay all court costs including attorney's fees. The judges were not impressed with her tears!
by Anonymous on June 14th, 2007
They are called frivolous lawsuits.
A lawsuit was in Federal Court. an american indian sued the U.S. Government, for not allowing him to erect a tee pee, with an open fire, and worship his religion on Sundays. can you imagine this?
The case was thrown out. another inmate sued so he could worship his pet rock, alone, in the open yard of the prison.
Total cost to the taxpayers?
$25,00.00 each case.........frivolous??
by George Dufferin on June 14th, 2007
Should never have been allowed past the steps of the courthouse. Whats the difference between a ham sandwich and a chicken sandwich?
by Kyogre-Stataen on June 14th, 2007
In my city where the Mexican border in right next to it, yes. We have many court casings that involve with drug lords from Mexico. There is strong evidence against them, but the jury is backing up from the lawyers.
by lookie boo on August 19th, 2009
yes..frivolous lawsuits are taking up too much court time. Most lawyers are just trying to become the next johnny cochrane at the expense of the tax payer. I wish common sense could make a comeback...
by Thriftymaid on August 19th, 2009
UhHuh
by Vampyre Bat on March 15th, 2008
Yes. Our use of attorneys have gooten way out of control.
if a PDF for a publication does not exist can I make my own by scanning a hard copy of the original?
by rsawyer4 on December 31st, 2010
| 1 person likes this
Is "Justice Delayed, Justice Denied"?
It has Been my Experience, that this is a Common Mindset In Bureaucracies.
by mdGreg on October 28th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
Does anyone know the cost for a legal last name change in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania? (NOT changing to a married last name!)
by sid7889 on October 18th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
can i post ex wife pictures she posed for willing \i asking for a legal op ion not a moral
by prissymarie on February 18th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
is it still considered vandalism if the sticker can come off without marks?
by Chris_K3282 on February 9th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
You're reading Judge forced to define difference between "sandwich" and Mexican sandwich, probably costing a small fortune in legal fees. Are there too many legal disputes and not enough common sense?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
Your point is well taken. My understanding of the specific case noted in this question is similar to your example, as it arose from a commercial lease dispute. One of the tenants was a sandwich shop had a lease provision forbidding the landlord from renting space in the same complex to another restaurant serving similar food. When the landlord later allowed a taco/burrito shop into the same complex, the prior tenant sued the landlord for breach of the lease agreement, and the court was forced to define "sandwich" to determine whether a taco or burrito was a similar enough food to constitute a breach of the lease. Not a frivolous case at all, in my opinion, but a legitimate business dispute.
by Agrippina on October 20th, 2007