Frivolous Lawsuits; How do you determine frivolousness without the presentation of evidence?

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by texdav

It is most of the lawsuits now days that actaully never were intended to do anyhting other than get a settlement less than the cost of defending.

That still doesn't address the question of whether the suits have merit or not.

[Austin13]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

But as we have noted, and as I have pointed out, none of the birther lawsuits have made it to trial which in my mind demonstrates that judges are best suited for determining what is and what isn't a frivolous lawsuit, not some statute. And in even in the case of the birthers they are afforded to present their claims to a competent court, that is their right, as it should be.

I totally agree.

[plmokn]

Dad sues Nordstrom, says 4-year-old slipped in 'too large' boots - latimes.com

[texdav]

You look at the basic filing to start with. Its like a proable cause affidavit sets out what is at issue and what is the evidence that proves it;submitted to a judge.
Then long before it gets to trial all witnesses are subject to statements with both attorneys being there to ask questions. This also is looked at by judge.Its not a Perry Mason type TV drama as both sides know what the other is submitting in evidence as it save time with delays to cross examine. New evidence has to be looked at by judge then other side given time to prepare to defend against it.