Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihu1m.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!ihu1m!gadfly
From: gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly)
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Re: Silly suits
Message-ID: <577@ihu1m.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 30-Jul-85 15:29:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihu1m.577
Posted: Tue Jul 30 15:29:08 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 1-Aug-85 22:07:20 EDT
References: <3306@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 27

--
> "A man filed suit against a tavern for negligently serving him
> excessive amounts of alcohol, leading to his arrest and humiliation
> after he stabbed another man during an argument.
>
> "Is there any justification for this sort of thing?"
> 
> "Yes there is.  Anyone can sue anyone for any reason.  The way one
> discovers whether the reason is on or off the wall is in the trial."

Not quite.  As I understand it, one must have "status to sue",
which entails showing material damages.  You must be substantially
wronged.  I have this understanding because once upon a time I
worked on an underground paper which was infiltrated by the city's
"red squad".  We didn't know it at the time, but it came out
when some of these records were made public under a more enlightened
administration.  We went to the ACLU screaming violation of our
4th Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure, but
were told that unless we could show--5 years after the fact--that
the stoolie caused some real damage, we had nothing to sue for.
-- 
                    *** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI   ***** *****
                 ****** ******  30 Jul 85 [12 Thermidor An CXCIII]
ken perlow       *****   *****
(312)979-7753     ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken   *** ***