Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Rusty0604

$75,000 dollars????????

She either has a bad lawyer or a bad case, this should be in the millions.


2 posted on 01/01/2014 7:48:10 AM PST by Venturer (Half Staff the Flag of the US for Terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Venturer
She either has a bad lawyer or a bad case

I'm going with bad case.

What was she doing in the bathroom when police surprised her ?

3 posted on 01/01/2014 7:50:26 AM PST by UCANSEE2 (I forgot what my tagline was supposed to say)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Venturer

That’s what I’m thinking. Maybe a typo?


4 posted on 01/01/2014 7:52:40 AM PST by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Venturer

Not enough to ask for this treatment by those who are supposed to “protect and serve.” But the taxpayers should pay this penalty for employing thugs like this at their police dept.

A much better system would be that the individuals who caused the injury, that denied her 16 requests to see a doctor, and their supervisors would have to pay the penalty. This system would also make these lawless employees a lot more careful.


6 posted on 01/01/2014 7:55:42 AM PST by txrefugee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Venturer

$75,000 dollars????????

She either has a bad lawyer or a bad case, this should be in the millions.

_________________________

The local story in the P-G on this states Ms. Needham is suing for “more than” $75,000. “more than” was apparently edited out.

There are a lot of local lawsuits that like to phrase it in this way- might have something to do with Pennsylvania tort law and the way the papers are drawn up.


9 posted on 01/01/2014 8:01:33 AM PST by I_Like_Spam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Venturer

I believe that is the minimum. In my opinion, it is still low though. The ones that denied her medical treatment should get long prison terms. And believe it or not, there was those who defended them on the other thread. It was in a back handed way though.


11 posted on 01/01/2014 8:03:53 AM PST by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Venturer

she has both a bad case and a bad lawyer… amputation is not the solution for so called compartmental syndrome….


14 posted on 01/01/2014 8:08:28 AM PST by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Venturer

In Pennsylvania, the plaintiff does not demand a specific amount of money as damages for a tort claim. A claim in excess of $75,000 means that the case will not be in the arbitration division, which is limited to claims of no more than $75,000.


16 posted on 01/01/2014 8:09:53 AM PST by metalurgist ( Want your country back? It'll take guns and rope. Marxists won't give up peaceably.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Venturer
"$75,000 dollars???????? She either has a bad lawyer or a bad case, this should be in the millions."

It sounds like she filed her case in Federal Court. One of the requirements for Federal Court jurisdiction in certain cases is that the "amount in controversy" be at least $75, 000. Thus, in the complaint attorneys routinely state that the damages "are in excess of $75,000" just to establish that the court does have jurisdiction to hear the claim. That doesn't mean the plaintiff is only seeking $75,000 in relief.

18 posted on 01/01/2014 8:13:35 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Venturer

$75,000? If I were her, I would seek $75 trillion and would not quit until I was awarded every single penny.


24 posted on 01/01/2014 8:32:40 AM PST by Fiji Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson