Does anyone know where I would go to have a ruling thrown out or ruled as bogus?

It's too late to appeal our case, but I know this ruling that a judge made to screw my family has been used in at least one other civil case and I just want to make sure that no other families get screwed by it.

I'd also love to just stare this judge in the face while I destroy his ruling because of his personal bias against me. See if he even shows any remorse for screwing over me and my family.

It will also give me some peace of mind.

I found a webpage a while back but can't find it now.

Any help is very much appreciated!

I thought you did appeal your case? Guess I was wrong.

There is pretty much nothing you can do at this point unless there is some new evidence that came out after the trial that shows some sort of criminal fraud or misconduct by the judge. Just making a wrong ruling is not enough. That is what the appeal process is for.

But something makes me think you will not accept this answer.

(10-22-2019, 03:39 PM)BFritz21 Wrote:  I know this ruling that a judge made to screw my family has been used in at least one other civil case and I just want to make sure that no other families get screwed by it.

Not sure what exactly you mean by this, but if your case established a new rule of law (not a finding of the fact) then it can be challenged any time it is taken up to the Supreme Court.

But the only way it could have established a new rule of law is if it was taken up to at least the Court of Appeals.  Cases from Circuit or Chancery Courts can not be used as precedent to argue an interpretation of the law in a different case.

(10-22-2019, 03:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not sure what exactly you mean by this, but if your case established a new rule of law (not a finding of the fact) then it can be challenged any time it is taken up to the Supreme Court.

But the only way it could have established a new rule of law is if it was taken up to at least the Court of Appeals.  Cases from Circuit or Chancery Courts can not be used as precedent to argue an interpretation of the law in a different case.

A judge let the driver's (my old best friend) parents out of the civil case saying that there was no way that they could foresee that he'd drive a car that night.  

We appealed it but it was held up at the local level and then my old man didn't want to take it higher (huge mistake).

A friend of mine that's an attorney says she was on a case and the opposing lawyer used that ruling for their case.  I don't want it to be able to used as a basis to screw any other families in the same way that it screwed mine.

(10-22-2019, 03:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I thought you did appeal your case?  Guess I was wrong.

There is pretty much nothing you can do at this point unless there is some new evidence that came out after the trial that shows some sort of criminal fraud or misconduct by the judge.  Just making a wrong ruling is not enough.  That is what the appeal process is for.

But something makes me think you will not accept this answer.

We appealed the ruling at the lowest level but didn't take it higher.  

Like I said, I know that there's nothing we can do for our case but it's about making sure other families aren't screwed by the ruling.

This judge never should have been on the case in the first place.

(10-22-2019, 04:10 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: A judge let the driver's (my old best friend) parents out of the civil case saying that there was no way that they could foresee that he'd drive a car that night.  

This is a finding of fact, not an interpretation of a law.

Usually juries make the findings of fact, but I assume this was a bench trial with just a judge and no jury?

When you take a case up on appeal you usually can not appeal the findings of fact made by the jury (or judge).  An appeal is almost always based on an improper interpretation of the law.  The court of appeals does not re-do the finding of facts.  They just apply the finding of facts to the law.

You can always appeal a case with the claim that the evidence did not support the decision, but those are pretty much impossible to win.  In your case the kid stole the car without his parents permission, and parents are not required to keep their children locked up like they are in jail.

But you got a judgement from someone didn't you?  Who paid that?

(10-22-2019, 05:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is a finding of fact, not an interpretation of a law.

Usually juries make the findings of fact, but I assume this was a bench trial with just a judge and no jury?

When you take a case up on appeal you usually can not appeal the findings of fact made by the jury (or judge).  An appeal is almost always based on an improper interpretation of the law.  The court of appeals does not re-do the finding of facts.  They just apply the finding of facts to the law.

You can always appeal a case with the claim that the evidence did not support the decision, but those are pretty much impossible to win.  In your case the kid stole the car without his parents permission, and parents are not required to keep their children locked up like they are in jail.

But you got a judgement from someone didn't you?  Who paid that?

It's not a fact, it's an opinion that they couldn't foresee him driving the car.

It was his sister's boyfriend's car that bought beer and left the keys in the car.

He has just lost a football game that day, which his number one love in life was football and his parents always praised him for it.  The school had won something like 7 straight state titles, and football was the one thing in life where he always felt in control and felt like a God, so him driving a car was obviously his way of feeling in control again since losing the game made him feel like he wasn't in control.  His parents had driven with him in the cemetery, which was also a well-known place where the caretaker let us drink and even bought us beer (his son was our age and).

The caretaker's son also played football, so they should have been able to foresee that something bad was going to happen (or at least dangerous), especially since the son was a maniac, both on the football field and how he used to pick fights (he sucker punched two of my other friends just like he did in this video). 

The cemetery made a high-low settlement for 500k-1.5, which the jury ended up finding the cemetery not at all to blame, which was a joke.

Did the cemetery insurance make a settlement offer that was refused because you preferred to take it to trial?

(10-22-2019, 09:07 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: It was his sister's boyfriend's car that bought beer and left the keys in the car.

Now I am confused.

You are saying the parents should somehow be responsible for him taking his sisters boyfriends car without permission?

What exactly should they have done to prevent this accident?  How were the negligent?

(10-22-2019, 09:11 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Did the cemetery insurance make a settlement offer that was refused because you preferred to take it to trial?

No.  They didn't offer much of anything in terms of a settlement so we figured we'd get more in trial.  Then, I think they offered a high-low settlement because they knew that the jury could find them at major fault, but without the driver's insurance it was hard.

(10-22-2019, 09:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Now I am confused.

You are saying the parents should somehow be responsible for him taking his sisters boyfriends car without permission?

What exactly should they have done to prevent this accident?  How were the negligent?

He was a maniac.  They knew he had drank before and they knew that he had driven in the cemetery, so they knew that he believed he was capable, especially with how arrogant he was.  They empowered him to do both by never punishing him for drinking and for letting him believe he could drive, so how can they say they couldn't foresee it if they're the ones who empowered him?

The permission was implied.  He was never charged with stealing the car.

If he had driven one of their cars that they had left while they go out, would that have made a difference?  

The judge made that claim in the ruling, which was just empty rhetoric to make it seem more unbelievable.

(10-22-2019, 09:07 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: It's not a fact, it's an opinion that they couldn't foresee him driving the car.

And your claim that they could foresee this is also just an opinion.


In legal cases someone has to decide what the facts are before the law can be applied to the facts.  You may believe that the jury is wrong (and sometimes they are) but in the eyes of the law the decision of the jury is the facts.

12 people listened to all the evidence and they disagreed with your opinion.

(10-22-2019, 09:31 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: No.  They didn't offer much of anything in terms of a settlement so we figured we'd get more in trial.  Then, I think they offered a high-low settlement because they knew that the jury could find them at major fault, but without the driver's insurance it was hard.

You say "NO." But then follow up with "They didn't offer much." So I'm going to assume an offer was made.  Ok, I just went through a major trial which involved 4 million and possible punitive damages. So you were offered something which you thought was minimal and decided to fight. Insurance companies try to settle without going to court because a jury verdict can be devastating with punitive damages when the policy holder tenders the policy, which it sounds like this might have, or could have been the case. If I'm wrong, please correct me. If you chose to take your case to court, then that's a decision you pretty much have to live with. A judge will normally go with the jury because, well, if he doesn't, we have a failed judicial system. However, I'm pretty sure your lawyer should have made this clear, knowing all the facts, and suggested to take the offer if he thought there was a chance he/she couldn't win. 

Brad, you got in that car knowing everything you know, and you knew that beforehand. As much as I'm sorry for what you are going through, there were so many bad decisions that night, which touched a lot of lives in more ways then one. It's so devastating and I'm so sorry for what you and everyone else has been through. However, when a case goes to trial and a jury comes up with a decision, it's close to impossible to get a different verdict without new facts that the other wasn't aware of in the first trial.

Your very passionate and if there is more out there that was not presented, then I hope it get's presented. Good luck friend.

(10-22-2019, 09:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And your claim that they could foresee this is also just an opinion.


In legal cases someone has to decide what the facts are before the law can be applied to the facts.  You may believe that the jury is wrong (and sometimes they are) but in the eyes of the law the decision of the jury is the facts.

12 people listened to all the evidence and they disagreed with your opinion.

Incorrect.

A judge made the decision based on evidence, which all pointed to their at least being a possibility that he would drive.

The judge had a preconceived notion of what had happened before everything (he would have heard about it within an hour of it happening, and it was most likely more like 20 minutes, tops) was discovered and he also had a preconceived negative opinion of me.  He had also seen all three of us that day.  

(10-22-2019, 09:58 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: You say "NO." But then follow up with "They didn't offer much." So I'm going to assume an offer was made.  Ok, I just went through a major trial which involved 4 million and possible punitive damages. So you were offered something which you thought was minimal and decided to fight. Insurance companies try to settle without going to court because a jury verdict can be devastating with punitive damages when the policy holder tenders the policy, which it sounds like this might have, or could have been the case. If I'm wrong, please correct me. If you chose to take your case to court, then that's a decision you pretty much have to live with. A judge will normally go with the jury because, well, if he doesn't, we have a failed judicial system. However, I'm pretty sure your lawyer should have made this clear, knowing all the facts, and suggested to take the offer if he thought there was a chance he/she couldn't win. 

Brad, you got in that car knowing everything you know, and you knew that beforehand. As much as I'm sorry for what you are going through, there were so many bad decisions that night, which touched a lot of lives in more ways then one. It's so devastating and I'm so sorry for what you and everyone else has been through. However, when a case goes to trial and a jury comes up with a decision, it's close to impossible to get a different verdict without new facts that the other wasn't aware of in the first trial.

Your very passionate and if there is more out there that was not presented, then I hope it get's presented. Good luck friend.

We were 15 and he hadn't been drinking yet and I had no way of knowing he'd go speeding through the cemetery.  

In fact, I actually wanted to leave the cemetery to go get my girlfriend and he did a 180 and took us speeding through the cemetery without my permission.

(10-22-2019, 10:55 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Incorrect.

A judge made the decision based on evidence, which all pointed to their at least being a possibility that he would drive.

The judge had a preconceived notion of what had happened before everything (he would have heard about it within an hour of it happening, and it was most likely more like 20 minutes, tops) was discovered and he also had a preconceived negative opinion of me.  He had also seen all three of us that day.  

We were 15 and he hadn't been drinking yet and I had no way of knowing he'd go speeding through the cemetery.  

In fact, I actually wanted to leave the cemetery to go get my girlfriend and he did a 180 and took us speeding through the cemetery without my permission.

If you had no way of knowing how could his parents know?

(10-23-2019, 11:23 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If you had no way of knowing how could his parents know?

It was about him driving to the cemetery, not speeding.

But, since you brought it up, a parent's brain is a lot more developed than a 15-year-old's and parents are supposed to watch over kids.

Thanks for trying to stump me but strengthening my point 

(10-22-2019, 10:55 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Incorrect.

A judge made the decision based on evidence, which all pointed to their at least being a possibility that he would drive.

Sorry, I thought there was a jury.  Either way the court made a finding of fact.


The fact that there was a possibility that this boy might drive a car was not enough to require his parents. to lock him up and never let him out of the house alone.  No court is going to enforce that standard.

The parents did not supply the car.  The parents did not supply the alcohol.  They did nothing to cause this accident.  I don't see how you think they could be to blame.  If he was as crazy as you claim he was then it was your fault for getting in the car with him.

(10-23-2019, 06:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Sorry, I thought there was a jury.  Either way the court made a finding of fact.


The fact that there was a possibility that this boy might drive a car was not enough to require his parents. to lock him up and never let him out of the house alone.  No court is going to enforce that standard.

The parents did not supply the car.  The parents did not supply the alcohol.  They did nothing to cause this accident.  I don't see how you think they could be to blame.  If he was as crazy as you claim he was then it was your fault for getting in the car with him.

False.

You realized you're wrong and you're just trying to cover yourself.

The judge made bias, opinion based ruling when all of the facts pointed to his parents being able to foresee that he would do what he did.

We were 15.  15-year-olds do crazy things because the part of the brain that controls that kind of thing isn't developed until a person is around 25.  That's why parents have control over their kids until they're 18 (and now you'll post "well, if that's the case, then why don't parents have control until the age of 25," but a person is usually in college or out on their own by that age, and they're also much better decisions makers than before 18).

(10-23-2019, 06:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: His driving to the cemetery did not hurt anyone.  I don't know what point you think was "strengthened".

I also agree that your parents should have done a better job of stopping you from engaging in dangerous criminal behavior like underage drinking, but it has been over 20 years.  You need to just forgive and move on.

My parents? 



Your attempts to bash me are so stupid its comical.  My parents punished me severely the one time they caught me drinking.  I went over my friend's house to go to a party and they had no way of knowing I'd be drinking, so how could they stopped me from engaging in dangerous behavior they had no way of knowing I'd be in.

I love this because it's a typical post by you where you make assumptions and hope that was is right and it scares me into not responding.

Your opinion is not legal fact Brad as much as you may want it to be. Just because you want to use revisionist history to say who should have done what the law does not, and obviously did not based on the court rulings, back up that belief.

As to your question, there is literally nothing you can do at this point except move on. For some reason though I just don't see that happening if it hasn't happened by now.

(10-24-2019, 03:59 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: False.

You realized you're wrong and you're just trying to cover yourself.

The judge made bias, opinion based ruling when all of the facts pointed to his parents being able to foresee that he would do what he did.

No Brad I am not wrong at all.  The case was appealed to a higher court and you lost there also.  So you can't blame this all on pone judge not liking you.

The fact that you can not say exactly what the parents could have done to prevent the accident short of locking up their son and never let him leave the home shows that I am correct.  No court would ever put that requirement on parents.

(10-24-2019, 03:59 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: My parents? 



Your attempts to bash me are so stupid its comical.  My parents punished me severely the one time they caught me drinking.  I went over my friend's house to go to a party and they had no way of knowing I'd be drinking, so how could they stopped me from engaging in dangerous behavior they had no way of knowing I'd be in.

I love this because it's a typical post by you where you make assumptions and hope that was is right and it scares me into not responding.

I deleted my post about yoour parents.  I did not mean to insult them as much as make a point about your argument.

Every parent knows there is a chance that their children will drink.  You had done this many times before and your parents had failed to monitor your behavior.  So if your parents did not take steps to stop you then they would be just as responsible for the accident as the parents of your friend.  You can't let your parents off the hook just because they were too lax to ever catch you.

Your friends parents did not let him have a car.  They did not provide the alcohol.  They did not do anything to cause this accident.

You knew he was a maniac.  You were the one who was drinking and got into the car with him.  You need to stop trying to blame other people for your mistake.

This issue is way too personal for me to keep arguing with you about it.  I am going to let this drop here.  I just hope you learn how to let it go instead of obsessing over it for the rest of your life.