| Appeal? For some reason I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that small claims decisions were not subject to appeal.
--
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. |
|
|
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by pende_tim:For some reason I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that small claims decisions were not subject to appeal. In California it is not only subject to appeal but the "appeal" is a new trial outright, albeit with lawyers this time around.
»courts.ca.gov/1072.htm
Seems kinda dumb to me, I always thought appeals courts should be in the business of deciding whether or not the lower courts followed proper process and nothing more.
My guess is that the original plaintiff in this case will try to argue that AT&T is appealing simply to encourage him to abandon the case (the section entitled "The Judge's Decision")
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. |
|
| reply to pende_tim
said by pende_tim:For some reason I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that small claims decisions were not subject to appeal.
California and I think 2 other states will grant an appeal for any reason.
I believe most states you must show an obvious error in order to even be considered for appeal. Even then its not usually granted. |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:said by pende_tim:For some reason I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that small claims decisions were not subject to appeal. In California it is not only subject to appeal but the "appeal" is a new trial outright, albeit with lawyers this time around. Which means the "winner" will have to shell out big bucks for his new counsel, unless he's lucky enough as a cause celebre to attract an ambulance-chasing populist to take the case.
Be careful what you wish for. |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to pnh102
Seems like it makes small claims court effectively useless.
That's the way these companies like it. No justice, you have to accept their terms under all circumstances (binding arbitration, etc)
and you have no legal recourse.
Meanwhile they have every recourse versus you and can do whatever they damn well please.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
| reply to pende_tim
Must depend on the state. Here in AZ they told me there was no appeal. |
|
 fatnesssubtleJanitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:14
Bright House Netwo..
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help
Rants, Raves, and ..
| reply to elray
said by elray:said by pnh102:said by pende_tim:For some reason I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that small claims decisions were not subject to appeal. In California it is not only subject to appeal but the "appeal" is a new trial outright, albeit with lawyers this time around. Which means the "winner" will have to shell out big bucks for his new counsel, unless he's lucky enough as a cause celebre to attract an ambulance-chasing populist to take the case. Be careful what you wish for. AT&T dropped their appeal and paid the judgment.
»www.theverge.com/2012/3/17/28793···0-payout
quote:
AT&T's back-and-forth with Matt Spaccarelli, the customer that took the carrier to small claims court for its throttling practices on unlimited data plans, appears to be over. AP reports that the carrier sent Spaccarelli a check for $850 — along with $85 for court fees — in compliance with the court ruling in February.
--
don’t let haters get me off my grind |
|
| Why is this not on the front page news? |
|
fatnesssubtleJanitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:14 | It is.
»AT&T Scraps Throttling Appeal, Pays User His $935
--
don’t let haters get me off my grind |
|
| Thank you. I saw it. |
|
