0
The plaintiff's name will be listed first on the summons followed by the term vs. 'whomever'. If the question refers to multiple parties being sued it really doesn't matter as long as all the debtors are named. For example, if it is a joint credit card account, both account holders have to be named as defendants in the suit. When the suit involves a primary borrower and a cosigner the debtors are usually sued in separate actions.
Wiki User
∙ 15y ago
Wiki User
∙ 15y agoPlaintiff
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Whose name goes first in a court case?
the plaintiff
What is the first pleading of the plaintiff in a civil action?
This question is vague, because "pleading" means many things. It could be the actual document you file, or it could be a specific statement in that document that you plead. Assuming you want to know what the pleading is called, the answer depends on jurisdiction. In Federal courts, for example, the initial pleading of a plaintiff is called a "complaint." In states that closely follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the word complaint is usually used to describe this pleading. In other state courts, the initial pleading of the plaintiff is known as a "petition," as in a petition to the court for an award of damages. If the question more generally asks what "first pleading of the plaintiff in a civil action" means, you can understand it as the first document filed by the plaintiff that initiates a lawsuit. In it the plaintiff identifies himself and his opponents, the defendants; sets out why jurisdiction and venue are proper; lays out his cause(s) of action against those defendants; and describes the damages he seeks. Different jurisdictions have different requirements on how specific this needs to be.
Can you opt out of a class action law suit?
Yes. First find out the type of class action lawsuit you are involved in. If you were automatically enrolled, you should have received in the mail notification. The notification should have listed a number which you call to opt out.
Does the court need to appt a attorney when a defendant can not afford one and is a first time feloney offense?
If the defendant can hire his own attorney, no. If he cannot afford an attorney, yes.
Who gets deposed first defendant or plaintiff?
If you are being deposed by opposing counsel strictly for factual material (which they will inevitably use to try to impeach your testimony) these depositions are held at the attorney's convenience. There is no 'set' order, and many cases do not even require depositions. Depositions are a poor second choice to actual in-person testimony, and are only allowed to be admissable for limited reasons.
Who were the parties in the US Supreme Court case Miranda v Arizona?
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966)Ernesto Miranda was the plaintiff; the state of Arizona was the defendant. In a court case, the plaintiff/petitioner's name is always listed first, and the defendant/respondent's name is listed last.
Can a civil court change the status of plaintiff to be the defendant?
No. Whoever files first is the Plaintiff. If the Defendant then chooses to "cross-sue", the Defendant will still be the defendant on the pleadings even though by virtue thereof, the defendant has launched what is called a counter-claim. In such a scenario, the Defendant will have to defend the Plaintiff's claim, and progress the counter-claim ---- in the same way the plaintiff will need to progress its claim as Plaintiff (and yes, in the same way, the Plaintiff will have to defend the counter-claim launched by the Defendant). By way of additional info, note that the "whoever files first" rule is generally applied to "fix" jurisdiction too. Although the general rule is that the Defendant should be sued in its own jurisdiction, rules modify this basic approach, most often by way of the applicable treaty (e.g. by "special jurisdiction" and "exclusive jurisdiction") and thus by such rules, often the plaintiff is able to sue in its own jurisdiction. Therefore if both potential parties believe they have a claim against the other, where the rules allow for the jurisdiction to be in the plaintiff's own, then it works on a "first come first served basis.
Why does the plaintiff go first?
The Plaintiff goes first because they are the people suing the defendant, which gives them the ability tp go first.
Who starts first the plaintiff or the defense?
The plaintiff - their legal representative outlines the case for the prosecution. It's then up to the defence barrister to answer the allegations on behalf of the defendant.
How do you answer the 'first pleading' to a lawsuit summons from a debt collector?
The defendant should respond in concise and clear manner to all the charges that are outlined in the suit. For example, the defendant should state whether he or she is indeed liable for the debt for which they are being sued. Be certain that any statement given is truthful to the best of your knowledge, as the respondent is considered to be under oath and subject to the penalties of perjury. Please be advised that the defendant is not legally required to respond to a summons but by not doing so he or she acknowleges that the lawsuit is valid. In some states the failure to respond results in a judgment being entered in favor of the plaintiff.
Should court permit a judgment procured through misrepresentation to bar a plenary action under Res Judicata rule?
To put the question in perspective, the principle of res judicata (or res adjudicata) prevents one party from litigating an issue that has already been litigated between the same parties in a prior lawsuit with a judgment being rendered resolving the issue. So what happens if that judgment has been obtained by misrepresentations? The judgment will be given res judicata effect unless it is set aside on appeal, reopened or vacated. One thing that will not be permitted is a second suit on the same issue with the same evidence between the same parties just so the losing party can have a second chance to win. The original judgment must be addressed within the first action. This situation could arise in this way: Plaintiff files a plenary action against defendant on a debt. (Plenary action is just a fancy term for a lawsuit involving a trial with a jury.) Defendant wins and gets a judgment that the debt is not owed. Plaintiff being unhappy with the result decides at a later date to file a new lawsuit on the same debt. Defendant raises res judicata as a defense, the judgment having already decided the very issue in the second lawsuit. Plaintiff counters by saying the judgment was obtained by misrepresentation and should not be given res judicata effect. If Plaintiff knew during trial that Defendant's evidence was misrepresentation that the court mistakenly believed, Plaintiff's remedy is to take an appeal that judgment and have it set aside. Failure to appeal constitutes for all intents and purposes, acceptance of the decision. In the event that it is later discovered that Defendant obtained judgment by misrepresentation, Plaintiff may file a motion within the first lawsuit for an order to re-open the judgment for presentation of the new evidence. In the event that Defendant's misrepresentations were so egregious (such as outright perjury) as to make enforcing the judgment a miscarriage of justice, Plaintiff has the remedy of filing a motion within the first lawsuit for an order vacating the judgment entirely. Litigants are required to prosecute their claims seriously. Courts exist to do justice between the litigants and if a litigant fails to prosecute its claim timely and properly and winds up with an adverse judgment that should not have been entered, it is up to that litigant to act quickly to preserve his or her rights. Even a judgment obtained by fraud will be allowed to stand after some period of time. Litigants should not sleep on their rights and expect the courts to aid them after they have done nothing to help themselves.
In litigation what's the difference between an answer and a response?
In terms of written pleadings, an Answer is the first document filed by a defendant in a lawsuit. In the answer the defendant answers or responds to each individual allegation made in the Complaint. If the defendant does not answer the complaint, the court might enter judgment against defendant. A Response is a more general category of pleadings meaning just about every type of paper that responds to some paper filed by the other party, whether it is the plaintiff or defendant. Example: The defendant files a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment or for additional discovery. The plaintiff is required to respond to the request and give reasons why the request should be denied or the court will most likely grant the relief requested. Note that the "Answer" is a responsive pleading, therefore it could be called a Response in a way. But Responses that are in answer to requests during trial like the ones above and not called Answers. The term Answer is left to describe the defendant's pleading that gives his or her answers to the allegations of the Complaint
What happens if the plaintiff does not show?
If you are referring to not appearing for the Plaintiff's own deposition, a few things may happen, in escalating levels of severity: 1. When it happens for the first time, the lawyers can often work out a new date. 2. If the plaintiff fails to appear a second time the Defendant usually files a Motion to Compel. This is a request to the court to enter an order requiring the plaintiff to appear for deposition. Often, the court urges the parties to agree on a date, but nonetheless, the force of the court order is being used. 3. If the plaintiff again fails to appear despite the court order compelling attendance, the defendant can file a motion for sanctions. This may request relief such as the court itself setting the date for the deposition, awarding attorneys fees to the defendant's attorney for the work necessitated by the failures to appear, or, as the most severe sanction, dismissing the plaintiff's lawsuit. A dismissal does not usually occur except in the most severe circumstances, when the court believes that the plaintiff has flaunted the authority of the court.
Whose name goes first in a court case?
the plaintiff
Is the government one of the parties in criminal law?
Yes, in criminal cases, the government is represented by the prosecutor. When a defendant is being charged with a crime, they are being accused of violating a rule that the government has issued, thus a "criminal trial" is essentially the government "suing" a defendant. On paper, when citing a case, the plaintiff (or prosecution) is always listed first, so you can infer that Arizona v. Johnson is a criminal trial because the state is listed first. The state of Arizona is seeking retribution from the a defendant: Johnson. However, cases like Miranda v. Arizona, a person, Miranda, is listed first. Because Miranda is listed first, you can infer that Miranda is seeking retribution from the state of Arizona. Any case where a person is listed before a state (or two people are listed, without a state) is a civil case.In the case of Miranda v. Arizona, Miranda sued the state of Arizona because he did not understand his rights (which consequently became the Miranda Rights). In a case like Gideon v. Wainwright, you can also infer that this is a civil case because a person is, again, listed first (and a state is not listed at all). So, Gideon sued Wainwright.
Does the role of the plaintiff and defendant change at the appeals level if the defendant files the appeal?
Yes and no. If the plaintiff prevails at the trial level and the defendant files a timely appeal, the defendant becomes the "appellant" and the plaintiff is the "appellee". In a particular case, the roles are the same in that each party is arguing the same "side". The plaintiff wants to keep a judgment and the defendant wants the judgment reversed - the same factual record and principles of law will apply. How the court interprets those facts, however, and reviews those principles of law, may be different than it was at the trial court below. For example, findings of fact are reviewed with substantial deference, and will only be reversed for abuse of discretion. Findings of law are reviewed "de novo," which means "like new". In this sense, the roles plaintiff and defendant may have switched because the defendant - as appellant - may be required to show that the lower court judge abused her discretion, and carries the burden of proof for this in the appeal. At trial, the plaintiff carries the burden of proof (usually a preponderance of the evidence). So the plaintiff carries the burden of proof in the underlying case, but the appellant must prove an "error" on appeal. Sometimes, you will see that, at the trial level, the plaintiff's name is listed first in the case caption, whereas the appellant's name is first in the caption on appeal. For example, if Smith sues Doe, the case name will be Smith v. Doe, and Smith, as the complaining party, will have the burden of proving up her case. If Smith wins at trial and Doe appeals, the case caption may be restyled as Doe v. Smith. Doe is now the "moving party," and has the burden of proving that the trial court erred when it found for Smith. When the evidence is presented at trial, Smith fill go first, followed by Doe. But on appeal, appellant Doe goes first. They both still have the same theories as to underlying liability, but who's "moving" (or asking the court to enter an order in their favor) has reversed.
Can a first party sue a second party for a fight if the first party agreed to the fight?
In the US, anyone can sue anyone for anything. The question is not whether you can sue, but whether you can win. This would be an action for battery. One of the defenses for battery is consent. If the defendant can prove that the plaintiff consented to the battery, the plaintiff will not be able to prevail.
