On Nov 13, 8:19=A0am, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Nov 13, 4:05=A0am, Greegor <Greego...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 12, 9:13=A0pm, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 12, 8:32=A0pm, Greegor <Greego...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > CT DCF ignored Federal consent decree for 17 years, grag claims,
bu=
t
> > > > the article actually says "it has met the majority of criteria
> > > > established by the court." Why can't grag read and comprehend what
=
he
> > > > posts?????
>
> > > > They got put under a Federal consent decree 17 years
> > > > ago and still haven't completely complied.
>
> > > "Got put?"
>
> > > What does that mean?
>
G > How long should the aggrieved plaintiffs wait, Dan?
DS > Which critical steps remain undone?
G > Do you think the Federal Court's consent
G > decree asked too much of them?
DS > Again, which critical steps remain undone?
G > Something the JUDGE ordered.
DS > The typical grag pathetic response.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/consent+decree
A settlement of a lawsuit or criminal case in which a person or
company agrees to take specific actions without admitting fault or
guilt for the situation that led to the lawsuit.
A consent decree is a settlement that is contained in a court order.
The court orders injunctive relief against the defendant and agrees to
maintain jurisdiction over the case to ensure that the settlement is
followed. (Injunctive relief is a remedy imposed by a court in which a
party is instructed to do or not do something.
Failure to obey the order may lead the court to find the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----
party in Contempt and to impose other penalties.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
) Plaintiffs in lawsuits generally prefer consent decrees because they
have the power of the court behind the agreements; defendants who wish
to avoid publicity also tend to prefer such agreements because they
limit the exposure of damaging details. Critics of consent decrees
argue that federal district courts assert too much power over the
defendant. They also contend that federal courts have imposed
conditions on state and local governments in Civil Rights Cases that
usurp the power of the states.
Most civil lawsuits are settled before going to trial and most
settlements are private agreements between the parties. Typically, the
plaintiff will file a motion to dismiss the case once the settlement
agreement has been signed. The court then issues a dismissal order and
the case is closed. However, if the defendant does not live up to the
terms of the settlement agreement the plaintiff cannot reactivate the
old lawsuit. This means filing a new lawsuit with the court and going
to the end of the line in order to process the case.
In more complex civil lawsuits that involve the conduct of business or
industry, and in actions by the government against businesses that
have allegedly violated regulatory laws, consent decrees are regularly
part of the settlement agreement. A court will maintain jurisdiction
and oversight to make sure the terms of the agreement are executed.
The threat of a contempt order may keep defendants from dragging their
feet or seeking to evade the intent of the agreement. In addition, the
terms of the settlement are public.
Certain types of lawsuits require a court to issue a consent decree.
In Class Action settlements, Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Procedure
mandates that a federal district court must determine whether a
proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable before approving
it. Under the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (the Tunney Act),
15 U.S.C.A. =A7 16(b)-(h), the court must review proposed consent
decrees in antitrust suits filed by the Justice Department. The
statute directs the court to review certain items, including whether
the decree advances the public interest.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Local No.93, Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters v.
City of Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501, 106 S.Ct. 3063, 92 L.Ed.2d 405
(1986), ruled that consent decrees "have attributes both of contracts
and of judicial decrees." The division between contracts and judicial
decrees suggests that consent decrees are contracts that resolve some
issues through the consent of the parties. However, for some issues,
the decree contains judicial acts rendered by the judge, not the
parties. Commentators have noted that these dual attributes require a
court to determine when it is appropriate to "rubber-stamp" a proposed
settlement and when it is more appropriate for the court to treat the
proposal as it would any judicial order.
The federal courts have been criticized for using consent decrees to
reform prison systems, school systems, and other government agencies.
Some courts have maintained oversight of agencies for many years and
have imposed conditions that have cost state and local governments
substantial amounts of money. Congress intervened in one litigation
area when it passed the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (Pub.L.
104-134, 110 Stat. 1321). The law imposed strict limits on what
federal courts could do in the future to improve prison conditions
through the use of consent decrees. In addition, it gave government
agencies the right to seek the termination of consent decrees, many of
which had lasted for decades.
http://images.google.com/images?hl=3Den&q=3Dpuppet%20bear
http://www.****lar.com/rubberworks/Handpuppets.htm
|
