Individual Paper Assignment 2 - Frivolous Law Suits Reactions and Essay

Individual Paper Assignment 2 - Frivolous Law Suits Reactions and Analysis - Essay Example It means the person arguing the position has absolutely no idea of what he is doing, and has completely wasted the time of everyone. It doesnt denote that the case was not well argued, or that judge simply decided for the other side, but it indicates that there was no other side. The argument may turn out to be absurd and incompetent. The judge is not telling you that you are "wrong." The judge is telling you that you are out of your mind.† Yet another definition of Frivolous law was defined in the case â€Å"Texaco, Inc. v. Golart, 206 Conn. 454, 463-464, 538 A.2d 1017 (1988)†wherein it was defined as: â€Å"The definition of a frivolous appeal is set forth in the comment to Rule 3.1, wherein it is stated that â€Å"the action is frivolous if the client desires to have the action taken primarily for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring a person or if the lawyer is unable either to make a good faith argument on the merits of the action taken or to support the action taken by a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.† Let us take the cases of Liebeck v. McDonalds Restaurants 1994, and Pearson v. Chung case filed in 2005. In February of 1992, Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was travelling in the passenger seat of her grandsons car when she was severely burned by McDonalds coffee. She was 79 years old then. The coffee was served in a Styrofoam cup at the drive through the window of a local McDonalds. After the coffee was served the grandson pulled his car forward and halted temporarily for Liebeck to add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck positioned the cup in between her knees and tried to take away the plastic lid from the cup. As soon as she opened the lid, the whole contents of the cup poured forth onto her lap. Liebeck was wearing sweatpants and it absorbed the