Join TexasGunTalk

Supreme Court Rules Sandy Hook Lawsuit May Proceed

Discussion in 'News Articles' started by Frank59, Nov 12, 2019.

  1. Renegade

    Renegade SuperOwner

    7,182
    2,604
    113
    Mar 5, 2008
    Texas
    no

    Prec·e·dent
    noun
    /ˈpresəd(ə)nt/
    1. an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.

    they declined cert, that is a precedent. All other cases were dismissed.

    Case Law is what occurs when they issue a ruling.
     


  2. oldag

    oldag TGT Addict

    6,026
    4,501
    113
    Feb 19, 2015
    You are citing a general definition of precedent, not the form used when referring to courts.

    Here is the correct definition:

    precedent:

    1) n. a prior reported opinion of an appeals court which establishes the legal rule (authority) in the future on the same legal question decided in the prior judgment. Thus, "the rule in Fishbeck v. Gladfelter is precedent for the issue before the court in this case." The doctrine that a lower court must follow a precedent is called stare decisis 2) adj. before, as in the term "condition precedent," which is a situation which must exist before a party to a contract has to perform.

    See also: stare decisis

    A refusal to hear the appeal is not an opinion (which also has a different definition in the legal sense as opposed to everyday usage).

    I am done trying to educate someone who refuses to learn.
     
  3. Renegade

    Renegade SuperOwner

    7,182
    2,604
    113
    Mar 5, 2008
    Texas
    that is because refusing cert in this instance is a general precedent, not a case law precedent.

    As someone said, this precedent will open the floodgates for more lawsuits, now the lawyers see their suits will not be dismissed before trial.

    either way this will not be contained to CT, as I originally said before you decided to argue the multiple meanings of the word precedent.
     
  4. Bozz10mm

    Bozz10mm TGT Addict TGT Supporter

    5,763
    2,484
    113
    Oct 5, 2013
    Georgetown
    It may apply just to the state of Connecticut, but only until the next state comes along and does the same. It pretty much sets a precedent that will allow all the states to let individuals sue manufacturers.

    The question is, where does it stop? Does it apply only to firearms?
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2019
    Renegade likes this.
  5. Renegade

    Renegade SuperOwner

    7,182
    2,604
    113
    Mar 5, 2008
    Texas
    OMG, you used that word!

    Firearms are one of the few industries that have a PLCAA. So it has been applying to other industries since forever. Ask Tobacco industry for example how many times they have been sued.
     
  6. RSBro

    RSBro New Member

    15
    9
    3
    Oct 9, 2019
    Tomball, TX
    Unless they are going to open this up to every manufacturer of literally everything, I can see how the suit will proceed but will ultimately fail. Haven't read a ton of it yet, but looking at the amount of alcohol and vehicle-related deaths there are every year and how they dwarf non-suicide gun deaths, not sure how you can turn a blind eye to those and not to firearms, but it's a wild world out there.
    As others have said, this is only going to rack up attorney fees for manufacturers and litigants, regardless of how often they 'win'. You're going to have liberal circuit court judges going crazy with all this nonsense.
     
  7. Wiliamr

    Wiliamr Active Member

    684
    151
    43
    Apr 15, 2011
    Austin
    There may be a bit of legal strategy going here. Not having seen the "advertising" the plaintiff is relying on to prove their case, the argument could be that the manufacturer was not engaged in "legal" commerce. I do not know what evidence if any was submitted by Remington to the Supreme Court asking for relief in this instance. I have a sneaking suspicion that the SC declined to hear the case because it is only at state court trial level and Conn. has a state law which the plaintiffs claim prevents unfair trade practices. This law would then have to be interpreted by the SC; which I suspect they would not want to touch.

    Allowing the case to proceed in Ct. (without seeing the evidence relied on by the plaintiff) allows a couple things to occur. IF a ruling there goes against the plaintiff, the issue is dead and that would allow a precedent of "res judicata" in future. If it goes against respondent then the case can be appealed up the courts in Conn. and then on to the USSC.
    The application of those rulings then would probably allow the respondent attorneys on appeal, to claim the verdict was inconsistent with and in conflict with the Conn. Fair Trade Act and thus improper.
     
  8. Renegade

    Renegade SuperOwner

    7,182
    2,604
    113
    Mar 5, 2008
    Texas
    This seems to be their case. This appears to be the verbage of PLCAA they are relying on:

    (iii)an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought, including—

    Not sure what was illegal since the gun was legally purchased. Either way, the gun was stolen, so it is not sure how that is Remington fault.

    I am afraid the PLCAA is going to be completely ignored in this case.
     
  9. Bozz10mm

    Bozz10mm TGT Addict TGT Supporter

    5,763
    2,484
    113
    Oct 5, 2013
    Georgetown
    I don't see how the illegal marketing applies in this case. The shooter did not purchase the firearm, he stole it.
     
    satx78247 and busykngt like this.
  10. Glenn B

    Glenn B Active Member TGT Supporter

    356
    373
    63
    Sep 5, 2019
    Texarkana Area
    I foresee another madhouse frenzy of folks purchasing ARs and other semi-auto rifles should this case look like Remington is going to lose. I base that on the precedent set by former buying frenzies that were based upon things of even less importance.:roflfunny:
     


Share This Page