What's an "Anti Suit Injunction" ?
966740
It's spitting, or as some less polite people call it, a pissing, contest between judges in different countries.\n\nThe classic cases are those of the late Freddie Laker, who was put out of business (Laker Airways) by the combined efforts (a conspiracy in restraint of trade) of all the main IATA translatlantic carriers.\n\nSir Lawrence Collins has written on this; and his Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws, 14th ed., just out, is probably the best source of information. That and some law review articles in the USA.\n\nBut I can refer you to some cases.\nhttp://www.uniset.ca/other/cs4/731F2d909.html\nhttp://tinyurl.com/v2whu\n\nThe point is that in anticipation of a RICO or an antitrust case, or even a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, a (typically) European firm might seek an injunction against a US firm from bringing an action in the US that would impair the European firm's interests.\n\nThe US firm -- and perhaps the US judge -- could freely ignore the injunction, and there could be an endless series of opposing orders. In the end, comity might, or might not, end the conflict. Collins wrote an article on comity that was published in a Festschrfit: Comity in "Modern Private International Law, in Reform and Development of Private International Law Essays in Honour of Sir Peter North".\n\nHow much do you really want to know? I could write lots more; but suffice to say an anti-suit injunction is an effort to prevent someone presumably subject to the laws of one country from frustrating that country's public policy by bringing suit elsewhere. Typically in the USA. And, if such suit is brought and judgment issued, the policy might be to block the enforcement of that judgment: U.K. Protection of Trading Interests Act, 1980, French law No. 80-538 of 6 July 1980, art. 273 of the Swiss Penal Code , the Mexican law “to protect trade and investment from foreign norms that contravene international law”, Canadian Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act.
931372
forum non conveniens means "this is not the convenient forum"... for example, let's say you are suing someone in country A for a wrong committed in country B (eg, a car accident in country B), country A is the "forum non conveniens" and country B is the "forum conveniens"\n\nan anti-suit injunction can be brought by the potential defendant in country B against the potential plaintiff to restrain the latter from suing in country A..
907501
It's a "restraining order."  Some courts may also term it an "injunction."
35587
What you've described sounds like a serious breach of ethics.  There should be a written agreement between you and the attorney; what does it say?\n\nYou may wish to review your state's Rules of Professional Conduct.\n\nIf the amount being sought is particularly egregious, or if you're certain that your representation herein of the agreement between you and the attorney is accurate, you may wish to sue the attorney: verbal contracts are legally binding.\n\nHowever, you might be able to achieve pretty much the same results by simply going to the judge with your complaint against the attorney, and asking him or her how you can resolve the dispute without tying up the court's time.\n\nSee if the judge will either mediate the dispute or appoint a mediator.\n\nAnytime a dispute is being resolved outside the court, unless you're almost certain the ruling will be overwhelmingly in your favor, you want mediation instead of arbitration.\n\nWith arbitration, you're pretty much stuck with whatever the arbiter decides -- and the flow is very anti-plaintiff.
183143
Hopefully this reply does not reach you too late.\n\nYou should go to the Clerk of the Court for the county in which the action was filed.\n\nOne generally responds to an answer by either Affirming, Denying, or Stating one is Without Knowledge of each allegation set forth in the complaint. You would also raise any affirmative defenses at this point. If you are in Florida, for example, see the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure for more detail on this matter (the link is below), or see the corresponding Rules of Civil Procedure for whatever court and jurisdiction the action was filed in. \n\nDo not construe this as legal advice & don't rely upon it. You need to seek the counsel of a lawyer to get legal advice. This is just a general pointing you in a possible direction.\n\nYou can email me at theinkgroup912@yahoo.com if you'd like
757740
Q) Are the petitioners allowed to execute warrants against the accused?\n\nA) The Court executes Warrants. In the case of a SUBPOENA to appear in Court, it can be served by anyone.\n\n********************************\n\nQ) Can they go their way to defame the accused when the legal proceedings are still pending in court?\n\nA) Short answer to that is NO. If you feel you are being "DEFAMED" by your accusor, you should file a cross-complaint to that effect.\n****************************\n\nQ) What shlould the accused do if the petitioner taking advantage of the loopholes in law harrasses the accused with police help?\n\nA) Consult with an Attorney and file the necessary harassment motions in Court.
212982
Your question is too vague.  I'd suggest you look at a horn book on Contracts - or do a key word search on Westlaw.  Generally, if a judge errs, the remedy is to appeal the matter and see what remedy the appellate court can offer.
776508
Wow - that's amazingly stupid!  Another unnessicary lawsuit that will clog up the legal system.\n\nNow if I could sue over spam...
398669
It's not worth a law suit.
703712
"Can an employee seek an interlocutory injunction against his employer?  If an employee feels that his employer is unreasonably requiring him to do work which is not part of his contractual obligations, can he seek an interlocutory injunction against his employer to maintain the status quo at work?"\n\nThe quick answer to your question is "Yes, you can seek just about anything before a court of competent jurisdiction."\n\nThe real question would be is it actionable?  And, assuming you have an actual contract (not a "job description") then you could file for breech of contract or injunctive relief for non-performance, etc. if the provisions of the contract allow AND if you have actually suffered some damages for which you are entitled relief.  That said, most employment contracts provide some specificity on the issue.  \n\nCheck your contract.  And realize that employment relationships generally necessitate some form of consistent give and take.  What is very unlikely is that a court would issue an order to your employer about how to conduct that relationship pending some final adjudication over the damages you claim.  If it isn't what you signed up for, terminate the relationship and take whatever liquidated damages (or "Golden parachute" or the like) are provided for in your employment contract.\n\n[This is not legal advice. You should consult a licensed attorney-at-law for legal advice or representation before making decisions that may affect your legal rights.]
22149
It's the same as the difference between the prevention and the cure.\n\nMitigation means you take steps to limit the problem.  Litigation means "to heck with mitigation, I'm gonna sue someone".
633791
very weird, instead of sewing them SUE.  Don't beleive any DOT laws were broken, you may have something on abandonment, but only a lawyer will know for sure.
1108927
It means that you may file a new suit on the same cause of action.\n\nYou may file a motion to reconsider the ruling.  This usually requires that you have new information that you did not at the time of your last hearing.\n\nYou may appeal the ruling to a higher court.  In an appeal you need to show that the judge had faulty legal reasoning.   They do not re-evaluate findings of facts on appeal.  You will need an attorney to do an appeal properly.
182689
Hire a bankruptcy attorney to advise you.  If you have filed your petition and are now receiving opposition from the trustee, simply trying to back out may be the wrong course of action.  This issue is way to sensitive to be handled in this forum.  Call an attorney right away.
660238
"Judicial Decisions.There is a doctrine in law called the "unclean hands" doctrine in which a plaintiff is denied any recovery because it comes into court with unclean hands (i.e., being guilty of some illegal or related misconduct), and the doctrine says (when the doctrine applies at all) that the court will leave the wrongdoers where they are and deny relief to them all in such a situation. \n\nThis unclean hands doctrine has repeatedly been held not to apply in antitrust cases. The importance of antitrust law enforcement for the nation far exceeds any benefit from depriving a plaintiff recovery because of some pecadillo, such as obtaining a more favorable price than smaller competitors. The defendant manufacturer is not excused from its liability to all disfavored purchasers merely because some of the disfavored purchasers were disfavored more or less than others"\n\n\nHow I'm assuming this applies to your ex-husband is:  Maybe he did not pay what he was court ordered to and then filed an exemption, so first he violated the law by not paying it and then filed an exemption; rather than filing the exemption before not paying it?  But I'm not a lawyer, so this is completely based on what I was able to deduce from that definition.
978472
I don't understand the question.\n\nWere you a creditor listed in the debtor's petition for bankruptcy? \n\nWere you listed as a co-debtor in the petition for bankruptcy?\n\nHow do you know that the opposition was not considered?\n\nAs a matter of law, once a debtor files a petition for bankrupticy, the debtor is given immediate protection against lawsuits and levies by creditors. if you are a creditor, perhaps this is what is confusing you. The real issue is the settlement of debts, which comes after a bankruptcy is declared.\n\nIt is at this time that you can oppose the bankruptcy.
37055
the party in a lawsuit or other legal proceeding who makes a motion (application for a court order or judgment).