|
In law, frivolous litigation is the practice of starting or carrying on lawsuits that, due to their lack of legal merit, have little to no chance of being won. The term does not include cases that may be lost due to other matters not related to legal merit. While colloquially, a person may term a lawsuit to be frivolous if he or she personally finds a claim to be absurd, in legal usage "frivolous litigation" consists of a claim or defense that is presented where the party (or the party's legal counsel) had reason to know that the claim or defense was manifestly insufficient or futile. The fact that a claim is lost does not imply that it was frivolous. Frivolous litigation may be based on absurd legal theories, may involve a superabundance or repetition of motions or additional suits, may be uncivil or harassing to the court, or may claim extreme remedies. A claim or defense may be frivolous because it had no underlying justification in fact, or because it was not presented with an argument for a reasonable extension or reinterpretation of the law. A claim may be deemed frivolous because existing laws unequivocally prohibit such a claim, such as a so-called Good Samaritan law. In the United States, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and similar state rules require that an attorney perform a due diligence investigation concerning the factual basis for any claim or defense. Jurisdictions differ on whether a claim or defense can be frivolous if the attorney acted in good faith. Because such a defense or claim wastes the court's and the other parties' time, resources and legal fees, sanctions may be imposed by a court upon the party or the lawyer who presents the frivolous defense or claim. The law firm may also be sanctioned, or even held in contempt. ==Federal statutes and rules of court penalizing frivolous litigation== In the U.S. Tax Court, frivolous arguments may result in a penalty of up to $25,000 under . Similarly, section 7482 of the Internal Revenue Code provides that the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Courts of Appeals may impose penalties in which the taxpayer's appeal of a U.S. Tax Court decision was "maintained primarily for delay" or where "the taxpayer's position in the appeal is frivolous or groundless."〔See paragraph (4) of subsection (c) of .〕 A common example, as shown below, is an argument based on tax protestor claims. In a noncriminal case in a U.S. District Court, a litigant (or a litigant's attorney) who presents any pleading, written motion or other paper to the court is required, under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to certify that, to the best of the presenter's knowledge and belief, the legal contentions "are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law".〔Rule 11(b)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.〕 Monetary civil penalties for violation of this rule may in some cases be imposed on the litigant or the attorney under Rule 11.〔Rule 11(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.〕 In one case, the Seventh Circuit Court issued an order giving such an attorney "14 days to show cause why he should not be fined $10,000 for his frivolous arguments".〔''United States v. Patridge'', 507 F.3d 1092, 2007-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,806 (7th Cir. 2007), ''cert. denied'', 552 U.S. 1280, 128 S.Ct. 1721 (2008).〕 A similar rule penalizing frivolous litigation applies in U.S. Bankruptcy Court under Rule 9011.〔Rule 9011(b)(2) and Rule 9011(c), Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.〕 The U.S. Congress has enacted section 1912 of Title 28 of the U.S.C. providing that in the U.S. Supreme Court and in the U.S. Courts of Appeals where litigation by the losing party has caused damage to the prevailing party, the court may impose a requirement that the losing party pay the prevailing party for those damages.〔See .〕 Litigants who represent themselves (''in forma pauperis'' and ''pro se'') sometimes make frivolous arguments due to their limited knowledge of the law and procedure. The particular tendency of prisoners to bring baseless lawsuits led to passage of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which limits the ability of prisoners to bring actions without payment. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「frivolous litigation」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|