If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Did any know?
Did anyone know that you can sue for intentional inference with
visitation rights in South Dakota? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Did any know?
wrote in message
oups.com... Did anyone know that you can sue for intentional inference with visitation rights in South Dakota? I hate to break it to ya, but you can in just about all 50 states and territories. The trouble is getting the proof to back up the aligation and then finding a judge that will listen. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Did any know?
Dusty wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Did anyone know that you can sue for intentional inference with visitation rights in South Dakota? I hate to break it to ya, but you can in just about all 50 states and territories. The trouble is getting the proof to back up the aligation and then finding a judge that will listen. I am refering to an actual recognized cause of action in tort. Sure, you could write the pleading. Many states (through the courts) have rejected intentional interference with visitation rights as able to maintain a cause of action in tort. South Dakota has accepted it as a a seperate and distinct cause of action. If you pled a prima facie case and it was dismissed you could appeal, and theoretically, make them try the case. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Did any know?
wrote in message oups.com... Dusty wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Did anyone know that you can sue for intentional inference with visitation rights in South Dakota? I hate to break it to ya, but you can in just about all 50 states and territories. The trouble is getting the proof to back up the aligation and then finding a judge that will listen. I am refering to an actual recognized cause of action in tort. Sure, you could write the pleading. Many states (through the courts) have rejected intentional interference with visitation rights as able to maintain a cause of action in tort. South Dakota has accepted it as a a seperate and distinct cause of action. If you pled a prima facie case and it was dismissed you could appeal, and theoretically, make them try the case. Remember the movie "Deliverance"? They decided it was best if they just buried the body being that they would be facing all the relatives as jurors/judge. This is no different; you're swimming against the tide. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Did any know?
"Chris" wrote in message
news:4LeDf.15346$sA3.14047@fed1read02... wrote in message oups.com... Dusty wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Did anyone know that you can sue for intentional inference with visitation rights in South Dakota? I hate to break it to ya, but you can in just about all 50 states and territories. The trouble is getting the proof to back up the aligation and then finding a judge that will listen. I am refering to an actual recognized cause of action in tort. Sure, you could write the pleading. Many states (through the courts) have rejected intentional interference with visitation rights as able to maintain a cause of action in tort. South Dakota has accepted it as a a seperate and distinct cause of action. If you pled a prima facie case and it was dismissed you could appeal, and theoretically, make them try the case. Remember the movie "Deliverance"? They decided it was best if they just buried the body being that they would be facing all the relatives as jurors/judge. This is no different; you're swimming against the tide. Thank you, Chris. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Did any know?
Chris wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Dusty wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Did anyone know that you can sue for intentional inference with visitation rights in South Dakota? I hate to break it to ya, but you can in just about all 50 states and territories. The trouble is getting the proof to back up the aligation and then finding a judge that will listen. I am refering to an actual recognized cause of action in tort. Sure, you could write the pleading. Many states (through the courts) have rejected intentional interference with visitation rights as able to maintain a cause of action in tort. South Dakota has accepted it as a a seperate and distinct cause of action. If you pled a prima facie case and it was dismissed you could appeal, and theoretically, make them try the case. Remember the movie "Deliverance"? They decided it was best if they just buried the body being that they would be facing all the relatives as jurors/judge. This is no different; you're swimming against the tide. Of course you are, read the "theoretically" in there. The precedent could be overturned and noone would care. I would like to know if any suits have been won based on this though. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Did any know?
Dusty wrote: "Chris" wrote in message news:4LeDf.15346$sA3.14047@fed1read02... wrote in message oups.com... Dusty wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Did anyone know that you can sue for intentional inference with visitation rights in South Dakota? I hate to break it to ya, but you can in just about all 50 states and territories. The trouble is getting the proof to back up the aligation and then finding a judge that will listen. I am refering to an actual recognized cause of action in tort. Sure, you could write the pleading. Many states (through the courts) have rejected intentional interference with visitation rights as able to maintain a cause of action in tort. South Dakota has accepted it as a a seperate and distinct cause of action. If you pled a prima facie case and it was dismissed you could appeal, and theoretically, make them try the case. Remember the movie "Deliverance"? They decided it was best if they just buried the body being that they would be facing all the relatives as jurors/judge. This is no different; you're swimming against the tide. Thank you, Chris. Do you have a problem with being wrong? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Did any know?
wrote in message
oups.com... Dusty wrote: "Chris" wrote in message news:4LeDf.15346$sA3.14047@fed1read02... wrote in message oups.com... Dusty wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Did anyone know that you can sue for intentional inference with visitation rights in South Dakota? I hate to break it to ya, but you can in just about all 50 states and territories. The trouble is getting the proof to back up the aligation and then finding a judge that will listen. I am refering to an actual recognized cause of action in tort. Sure, you could write the pleading. Many states (through the courts) have rejected intentional interference with visitation rights as able to maintain a cause of action in tort. South Dakota has accepted it as a a seperate and distinct cause of action. If you pled a prima facie case and it was dismissed you could appeal, and theoretically, make them try the case. Remember the movie "Deliverance"? They decided it was best if they just buried the body being that they would be facing all the relatives as jurors/judge. This is no different; you're swimming against the tide. Thank you, Chris. Do you have a problem with being wrong? I was not wrong. Chris said the samething as I, he just phrased it so that, with the exception of yourself, anyone could understand it. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Did any know?
wrote in message
oups.com... Chris wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Dusty wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Did anyone know that you can sue for intentional inference with visitation rights in South Dakota? I hate to break it to ya, but you can in just about all 50 states and territories. The trouble is getting the proof to back up the aligation and then finding a judge that will listen. I am refering to an actual recognized cause of action in tort. Sure, you could write the pleading. Many states (through the courts) have rejected intentional interference with visitation rights as able to maintain a cause of action in tort. South Dakota has accepted it as a a seperate and distinct cause of action. If you pled a prima facie case and it was dismissed you could appeal, and theoretically, make them try the case. Remember the movie "Deliverance"? They decided it was best if they just buried the body being that they would be facing all the relatives as jurors/judge. This is no different; you're swimming against the tide. Of course you are, read the "theoretically" in there. The precedent could be overturned and noone would care. I would like to know if any suits have been won based on this though. Do a Google search on it, or head over to the local law libarary (you might find it in the courthouse) and look it up. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Did any know?
Dusty wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Chris wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Dusty wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Did anyone know that you can sue for intentional inference with visitation rights in South Dakota? I hate to break it to ya, but you can in just about all 50 states and territories. The trouble is getting the proof to back up the aligation and then finding a judge that will listen. I am refering to an actual recognized cause of action in tort. Sure, you could write the pleading. Many states (through the courts) have rejected intentional interference with visitation rights as able to maintain a cause of action in tort. South Dakota has accepted it as a a seperate and distinct cause of action. If you pled a prima facie case and it was dismissed you could appeal, and theoretically, make them try the case. Remember the movie "Deliverance"? They decided it was best if they just buried the body being that they would be facing all the relatives as jurors/judge. This is no different; you're swimming against the tide. Of course you are, read the "theoretically" in there. The precedent could be overturned and noone would care. I would like to know if any suits have been won based on this though. Do a Google search on it, or head over to the local law libarary (you might find it in the courthouse) and look it up. Do you know what a recognized case of action is? Ok, here is a breakdown . . . . intentional interference with noncustodial parents visitation rights by custodial parent is not recognized as a cause of action in the following states: Louisiana, no. New York, no. Missouri, no. Wisconsin, no. Maryland, no. Wyoming, no. Delaware, no. Florida, no. Oklahoma, no. You look up the rest down at your local law library, I am bored. Make sure to distinguish between interference by a third-party as more courts allow this. I wanted to pointed out an anamoly, and a positive one at that, in the law. You need to step down about three notches... Oh yeah, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|