"One begins to think that tort reform efforts must be the result of projection."
Or that the proffered reasons in favor efforts to enact tort reform legislation have little to do with the real reasons behind the movement. Seriously, as someone with significant sympathy for a lot of the tort reform efforts (the recently filibustered Class Action Fairness Act was a good law, in my opinion--and the opinions of most of the (primarily Democratic) class action defense lawyers I work with), a lot of it is a pure giveaway to big corporate interests. When it comes to frivolous suits that would benefit the organizations pushing to (for example) cap damages, they're all for them.
Posted by Josh at October 30, 2003 03:37 PMOh, can you explain “why” it was a good law, and whether it is really constitutional to redefine the diversity requirement?
And what lawsuits are “frivolous”? Do you have a definition of this word, is it similar to what would merit sanctions under Rule 11, or do you define the word as “anything that America’s majestic corporations do not like.”
Moreover, since you feel that there are lots of frivolous lawsuits out there, perhaps you can give a few cites to class actions that have been held to be frivolous and the parties sanctioned.