Victor Mignogna v. Funimation Productions, LLC, et al. (2019) - Vic's lawsuit against Funimation, VAs, and others, for over a million dollars.

  • ATTN NEW USERS: I strongly suggest using a real, alter-ego email address from a reputable provider and using a Password Manager to securely keep tack of it. If you forget your email and password I cannot restore your account. These are good practices in general so stop being lazy.

Kosher Salt

(((NaCl)))
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Mar 10, 2019
Can the court use newer cases as citations for or against Vic's appeal? Maybe they had to get some of those other TCPA cleared up first to use.
They can kinda do whatever they want. They could certainly do that if they found it convenient but they could also just apply the same reasoning to both cases without specifically citing to the previous one.
Also funny, the original obit claims she was "playing with cousins" and "accidentally encountered" the train. They were setting up the lawsuit from the moment her death was publicised.
To be fair, obituaries hardly ever give the truth when people die in embarrassing ways. It's very common for suicide to not be the family's publicly stated reason for their loved one's death.
 

AnOminous

Only the kindest and friendliest of all Goodmans
Retired Staff
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Dec 28, 2014
They can kinda do whatever they want. They could certainly do that if they found it convenient but they could also just apply the same reasoning to both cases without specifically citing to the previous one.
Some things are considered inherently non-retroactive, like anything that creates a new crime or enhances the penalty for an existing one. There's even an oddball category where there is no retroactivity whatsoever, even as applied to the current case, but the new rule applies to future cases. This is fairly common in § 1983 cases on the question of whether something is "clearly established law." They'll find that there wasn't any case law at the time making the new rule "clearly established law," but now that there is, it will be "clearly established law" in any future case.

So if you're that "lucky" plaintiff, you just spent a fortune to establish a new legal rule and you get jack-shit for it.
 

Thomas Talus

Εκ λόγου άλλος εκβαίνει λόγος
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Dec 20, 2019
The "I won my court case and made precedent case law, but all I got was this shirt" outcome.
“I was never ruined but twice: once when I lost a lawsuit, and once when I won one.”

Regarding the train case, I suspect the defendants could just say "Well, we had to decide how much to spend on warning signs" and get it dismissed on discretionary immunity grounds.
 

LullerDerbyRollin

I have no mouth and I have only more to scream
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Aug 29, 2019
It depends on the kind of case and when it happened. Many civil cases are going to have what is called pipeline retroactivity, which means any new legal principles stated therein are now binding precedent on any case currently being tried or on direct appeal.

There are times when it isn't practical to impose retroactivity, though, and retroactivity can range from none at all to total retroactivity, i.e. you can actually go back and reopen a now-closed case. This happened with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), where literally thousands of cases were sent back for resentencing.

An example where retroactivity wasn't imposed was Miranda of the famous "Miranda warning." It would make no sense to expect police to have, in the past, recited a bunch of magic words the Court just made up.

There's also something called collateral estoppel where the factual findings from another case apply to the current case, and you had an opportunity to argue that issue in the previous case (but lost). Those factual findings can be held against you.

In this case, since neither the trial court nor the appeals court is supposed to be resolving substantial factual disputes, legal rules set out in other cases before the appeals court comes to a decision should (probably) be applied retroactively, at least the kind of TCPA cases we've seen in the past year.

There's another kind of retroactivity here, which is statutory retroactivity. It doesn't seem the recent changes to the TCPA apply to this case, which is operating on the statute as it existed when the suit was filed. That might also contribute to the seeming lack of enthusiasm to come to a speedy resolution.

I don't see how the changes affect anything in this case, but the appeals panel may.

So do juries, generally. It's very rare to win a case like this even if it isn't outright dismissed like this case. The government generally does not have the obligation to keep you from offing yourself, even when they have the authority. Generally, municipal liability is heavily limited and has a heavy burden for the plaintiff to establish such liability. Even when there is liability, what safety measures are obligatory are those that are reasonable under the circumstances. There quite simply isn't a practical way to idiot-proof a train so that nobody can jump in front of it.

One generally has little duty to an adult trespasser other than not deliberately setting up death traps.

Throw in that Texas has gone through some fairly aggressive tort reform legislation in the last couple decades (including the TCPA itself). In any event Texas courts are not a friendly forum for suing other people for shit you did to yourself.
I wonder some times how different things had been if Ty Beard had re-filed it under the new TCPA laws. I know he thought he could win as is, probably would've with any other judge,
 

Allanon

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Mar 21, 2019
“I was never ruined but twice: once when I lost a lawsuit, and once when I won one.”

Regarding the train case, I suspect the defendants could just say "Well, we had to decide how much to spend on warning signs" and get it dismissed on discretionary immunity grounds.
Don't know where it stands legally, but I imagine from a common sense standpoint they only have a claim if they can demonstrate great negligence from the railroad, like frequent gaping holes and lack of maintenance where there should be walls to prevent entry, previous complaints from residents or accidents/near miss accidents around that area. A ratty fence shouldn't be enough on its own to make them culpable, because effort was clearly made to avoid incidents and you can't expect them to turn every train into a subway tunnel just to avoid incidents.
 

AnOminous

Only the kindest and friendliest of all Goodmans
Retired Staff
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Dec 28, 2014
Don't know where it stands legally, but I imagine from a common sense standpoint they only have a claim if they can demonstrate great negligence from the railroad, like frequent gaping holes and lack of maintenance where there should be walls to prevent entry, previous complaints from residents or accidents/near miss accidents around that area. A ratty fence shouldn't be enough on its own to make them culpable, because effort was clearly made to avoid incidents and you can't expect them to turn every train into a subway tunnel just to avoid incidents.
In this case, they outright failed to establish jurisdiction, because they didn't go through the proper presuit notice procedure under the Texas Tort Claims Act, so sovereign immunity implied to both government defendants.
Screenshot 2022-01-22 235523.png
Sudderth has a clear, crisp writing style worth reading and her opinions actually explain what she's talking about. It's good she's the Chief Justice, wrote Van der Linden v. Khan and is on this panel. With the series of TCPA decisions each citing the one immediately prior, it almost seems as if they're setting something up.
 

TheClappening

Super Effective
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Mar 5, 2019
Sudderth has a clear, crisp writing style worth reading and her opinions actually explain what she's talking about. It's good she's the Chief Justice, wrote Van der Linden v. Khan and is on this panel. With the series of TCPA decisions each citing the one immediately prior, it almost seems as if they're setting something up.
Interestingly enough, Sudderth hasn't been on any of the three TCPA cases we've looked at so far.

Watkins v. Miller was Kerr, Bassel, and Wallach.
Ramseys' Rods v. Maggretts was Birdwell, Wallach, and Walker (Walker being the judge who annihilated Chupp in the court elections).
Miller v. Schupp is Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel.

Wallach, who's on Vic's panel, did sit on two of those TCPA cases.
 

Barricade

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 25, 2020
Very retarded question as I'm sure there are cases that have stretched out longer than this, but at what point does the Sixth Amendment start to come in to play here? I mean what mechanism or remedy is there if a judge simply ignores a case and refuses to rule on it for whatever reason?

Like, 9th Circuit gets a challenge to gun legislation they know is unconstitutional? "Eh leave it on the to-do list for a upwards of a decade, more important shit to work on, see if we can hold out for a more liberal SCOTUS or something."

I know that isn't the case here, just curious because if I were in Vic's shoes I would feel this is past the point of egregious. Sorry if this was answered earlier in the thread.
 

Make Anime Illegal

CONFISCATE their waifus
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
May 18, 2019
Very retarded question as I'm sure there are cases that have stretched out longer than this, but at what point does the Sixth Amendment start to come in to play here? I mean what mechanism or remedy is there if a judge simply ignores a case and refuses to rule on it for whatever reason?

Like, 9th Circuit gets a challenge to gun legislation they know is unconstitutional? "Eh leave it on the to-do list for a upwards of a decade, more important shit to work on, see if we can hold out for a more liberal SCOTUS or something."

I know that isn't the case here, just curious because if I were in Vic's shoes I would feel this is past the point of egregious. Sorry if this was answered earlier in the thread.
I'm pretty sure the 6th amendment only really applies to defendants in a criminal case.
 

TheClappening

Super Effective
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Mar 5, 2019
Another week of waiting, another week of disappointment.

Another half hour, you say? Ha! Why should this week be any different from the previous weeks?

Ahh, good point. I think my question still stands though
I think @AnOminous answered something similar. You'd have to petition the court with authority over the appellate court (in this case, I think SCOTX), and mandamus them into getting a move on. Low chance of success.
 

AnOminous

Only the kindest and friendliest of all Goodmans
Retired Staff
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Dec 28, 2014
I think @AnOminous answered something similar. You'd have to petition the court with authority over the appellate court (in this case, I think SCOTX), and mandamus them into getting a move on. Low chance of success.
In old common law, what you'd do is file for one of the ancient prerogative writs, specifically one called a writ of procedendo. This writ essentially orders an inferior court to come to a decision, but without ordering a specific decision (which the issuing court would generally actually not have original jurisdiction over anyway).

Many jurisdictions have abolished the actual common law prerogative writs, but have usually maintained them in some form. For instance, federal law doesn't recognize these writs any more, but still has the "All Writs Act," 28 U.S.C. § 1651, which essentially allows any litigant to invoke one of the prerogative writs (or actually imaginable writ).

Good luck ever convincing any court to grant one of these, though. This kind of writ is the sort of thing law nerds find endlessly fascinating but rarely results in anything in reality.
 

TheClappening

Super Effective
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Mar 5, 2019
I'm still sticking with the theory that trying to read the case killed or maimed at least three Law Clerks, and the Judges have now pushed the case file into a corner and keep it surrounded with lit candles in a mystic circle of chicken blood.
At least it's not dog's blood, since it might've perked up Ron Toye.

EDIT:
Type Fuck You 2DCOA to pay respects

1643340679687.png
 
Last edited: