![]() | A fact from Vexatious litigation appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 21 March 2004. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Recently I added the text of the judgment in Grepe v Loam to the Vexatious_Litigant website - someone might like to link it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.101.224 ( talk) 19:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Removed the following line:
"It can last for years as in Varian v. Delfino, a case that ended in the California Supreme Court. "
kmccoy (talk) 08:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
in propria persona occurs three times; if it has an English equivalent, use that. If it's a special and useful term it should have its own entry. If it's a one-shot special term it should be explained parenthetically after its first usage. -- AC 15:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Why was the Cleanup template added? The article is not great but it's workable. Cutler 20:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Does this exist in other part of the United States besides California? Having the article mention a lawsuit in Washington DC seems to imply that it does exist in other parts of the US, but the "Law by jurisdiction" section seems to imply otherwise. Ricree101 ( talk) 05:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Cleaned up and completed discussion of California law, and added a discussion on Controversies.
-- I clarified that the California vexatious litigant standard applies to pro-se, or self-represented, litigants only. The use of Latin in the definition needed clarification. Sorry, I couldn't figure out how to make a separate subheading for this. Agnosticaphid ( talk) 08:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
The following commentary has been moved from the article to here:
While some citations are found in the text, the cited materials do not appear to support the opinions expressed -- such as "these laws have been abused by well-heeled...." and "There is deepseated prejudice...." and "US Judges often unjustifiably assume....." These kind of statements appear to be unsourced opinions. Stay tuned... Famspear ( talk) 21:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Let's look at this statement:
Is this the opinion of the Wikipedia editor who inserted the material, or is this the opinion of a previously-published third party source? If we can find a previously-published third party source who has expressed this opinion, then the material might be appropriate for the article. That does not mean looking for examples of where the laws have been abused, etc., etc. What that means is finding some previously-published third party source who has expressed this opinion.
Now this:
Again, this is a statement of opinion. Whose opinion?
And this:
Who says so? Whose opinion is this?
And this:
Who says so?
And this:
Again who is it that is saying that U.S. judges do this? Yours, Famspear ( talk) 21:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
The note does not show that the MENZIES, Rowan Gavin Paton listed by HM Court Service as a vexatious litigant is the same person as the author of 1421: The Year China Discovered the World. 84.23.155.88 ( talk) 17:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's a good secondary source: Goodman, David S. G. (2006). "Mao and The Da Vinci Code: Conspiracy, Narrative and History". The Pacific Review 19 (3): 359–384. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a757572630~frm=titlelink. [2] Joja lozzo 18:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Is it the purpose of this section to list those VLs who are notable other than as VLs or it it to list those who are notable as VLs or both? Joja lozzo 18:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that the link from this article to Liebeck v. McDonalds, in the "see also" section, is appropriate or helpful. While I know that some people assert (in my view, incorrectly, but that's not relevant) that that case is an example of frivolous litigation, I don't think there's any reason to characterize Ms Liebeck as a vexatious litigant. The article certainly doesn't mention any other cases she's brought.
Does anyone object to me removing this link? AgnosticAphid talk 23:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Red.com vs Epic Games 8:2008-cv-00494
Red.con vs LG Electric 8:2008-cv-00504
Red.com vs Netcast 8:2008-cv-01030
Red.com vs Sony 8:2013-cv-00546
Red.com vs Andrew Reid 8:2010-cv-01505
Red.com vs p Pixellexis 8:2011-cv-01155
Red.com vs Arri 8:2011-cv-01972
Red.com vs Tom Jordan 8:2012-cv-00380
Red.com vs Uniqoptics 2:2011-cv-03611
Red.com vs Nightsky Hostings 8:2012-cv-00034
Red.com vs Wooden Camera 3:2012-cv-01336
Red.com vs 24P,LLC 8:2007-cv-01013
Would someone please look into Oakley, Inc. Same original owner. Same attorneys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.254.12.184 ( talk) 22:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Vexatious litigation. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Vexatious litigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Vexatious claims include those where the claimant is themselves a notorious lawbreaker using litigation to subdue or harass opponents, especially those unable to match the claimant's legal funds. Clearly this needs to be referenced with established examples - can someone please help me here?-- Richard Comaish ( talk) 15:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
In the current
WP:LEAD, the sentence These legal actions occur[dubious – discuss] in some countries of the former...
, taken in the context of the sentence that follows it, seems to say, without saying so explicitly, that vexatious litigation only occurs in common law countries. This is highly dubious, because unreasonable people exist all over the world. Probably the intended meaning is Procedures that prohibit vexatious legislation occur in some countries of the former...
. If there are any reasons against changing to Procedures that prohibit vexatious legislation occur in some countries of the former...
, then please state them.
Boud (
talk)
16:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
" Civil (codified/continental) law systems typically do not have a prohibition against vexatious litigation. citation needed"and I'm not even sure that that is correct. Should we remove the whole paragraph? DanielRigal ( talk) 17:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)