-
Welcome to our legal community! Click here or the create new topic button to ask a question and receive answers and comments from our friendly and helpful legal community.
Articles that answer frequent legal questions are in our Law Guide. Important legal news is reported in The Law JournalYou can find a lawyer near you in the Lawyer Directory. If you know that you need to hire an attorney, you can submit a case review from a lawyer.
Standard of Review "good cause to believe"
- Thread Starter jhpjr1
- Start date
mightymoose
Moderator
It is just a matter of your claims being reasonable.
Like reasonable, reasonable person are relative terms. When a court uses such terms it supports such terms by quoting cases illustrating what it means when using such relative terms if it cannot define such relative terms. I don't use relative terms to define a relative term
If you can't figure out the definition for reasonable or a reasonable person standard then you have issues.
Reasonable person standard: "A phrase frequently used int tort and criminal law to denote a hypothetical person in society who exercises average care,skill, and judgment in conduct and who serves as a comparative standard for determining liability."
Reasonable person standard: "A phrase frequently used int tort and criminal law to denote a hypothetical person in society who exercises average care,skill, and judgment in conduct and who serves as a comparative standard for determining liability."
That is correct if it's tort you are dealing with. But the standard the DC courts use in deciding to grant a civil protection order under the intrafamily act is "good reason to believe" that an offense was committed. Can't use reasonable people here otherwise they would allow juries decide these cases instead of a trier of fact. If I can't get a definition on this then in my opinion like the Judges do in many non jury trials their decision is based on their own personal discretion. Try and define Judges' discretion and see if you can come up with one definition! Oha!
If you're so smart and know everything than why are you on here asking for advice?
I'll tell you this then. In the case of a protection order "good cause to believe" means the judge felt there was a good cause for him or her to believe that you or whoever the protection order was ordered against is an abusive prick who needs to stay away from the plaintiff. Is that better?
army judge
Super Moderator
I like your ability to "turn a phrase".
I can't comment on others, but you made it crystal clear for me.
I like your ability to "turn a phrase".
I can't comment on others, but you made it crystal clear for me.
Well the only difference between my phrase "good cause to believe" and what you say it means is the "felt" If you are saying it means what the Judge "felt" I'll look it up in Black's Law Dictionary and see if it list any cases to get a clearer meaning of the term. Don't think you're incorrect. I sure in hell would not want to have my client waiting for a decision on how the Judge felt. Maybe that is what you refer not I. Note: Try Lexis or Westlaw which I am not fortunate to have access to at this time.
That's not what I said. At all.
Why are you on here if you are an attorney?
I have requested a protection order. Usually temporary ones get granted pretty easily. I have had temporary one in two states. The second one I didn't go to the hearing to get a permanent.
The first one I did. It almost didn't get granted because the incident happened in another state but the lawyer I talked to told me to file in the state I was in. The judge did ultimately grant a final order based on texts that the person had sent me and the incident of violence.
I guess ultimately every decision a judge makes at the bottom of it is made on how they feel based on the evidence presented to them.
I'm not going to try anything. You asked a question you got an answer.
Here the issue, when you appeal a CPO, that court says, we affirm the lower court because the lower court look at the totality of the facts and made a decision because it had a "good reason to believe" and we, the court, will only change such a decision if the lower court made an error in law. The appeal says we do not disturb the trier of facts in how it made it determination how they decided what was creditable as facts. The problem with that is if its the petitioner's word against the Respondent's word its a problem if you have a judge up there saying I believe that's true or I don't believe that's true. If they look at the totality of or preponderance of the facts is the Judge up there keeping score as each party testifies to each issue? Based on the appeals court standard it gives the lower court that kind of latitude because they don't have to worry about the appeals court looking at how they decided what it decided what was fact and what wasn't fact. I have seen where a lower court judge didn't give a d__ what the law was and decided on how she believe was the right decision. She got her cases overturn more than 22 times. Frankly, her position was if the court of appeals don't like the decision than they can remand it giving me specific instructions or I'll do the same decision just giving more or different reasons, period.
I don't know why you keep commenting since you have all the answers. And the respondent in my case didn't show up so that's also why I got it granted.
I explained a reasonable person standard. You don't seem to get it because you're not a resonable person apparently. Good day.
And a judge is not consider a reasonable person when the appeal reviews the trial courts determination based on its "good reason to believe" Think about it.
You asked about protection orders. Not appeals.
Whether appeal or trial, the issue is show me where i.e. case, statute or otherwise, where they show you how a Judge makes a determination to issue a CPO base on "a good cause to believe".
army judge
Super Moderator
Let me break it down for you, mate.
Judges answer to no one.
Some might run for reelection every few years, but judges do what they want, how they want, and smart enough to BOOTSTRAP their decisions to make them stick.
Even if a case is remanded, most judges don't care.
Most judges don't want to be supreme court justices, so erroneous decisions don't matter to them.
Yeah, a few get popped, smacked around, even forced to leave their bench, but that rarely helps litigants or some guy doing 25 in some rotten prison cell.
You know who worries about this stuff?
No, not judges, not lawyers, not cops, some guy like you who still hasn't figured it out, justice is like Big Foot, you hear about Big Foot sightings, but no one has evidence of his existence, no one.
Justice is as elusive as Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Big Foot, Unicorns, and leprechauns.
Justice is a legend mate, just a legend.
You know what I think about that? Tell it to Superior Court Judge Harold Haley. I'm sure he wished what you said was true. (Note: I don't condone what happen. I believe there is a better way of eradicating injustice)
army judge
Super Moderator
Share this page
