113
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 May 2025
113 points (98.3% liked)
Not The Onion
17426 readers
198 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
On what grounds?
EDIT:
Lmao, I've never heard of any other watermarks warranting this extreme response. Does the judge just get to decide whatever he wants is impertinent or scandalous?
Yeah, “scandalous” is too much. I can see “impertinent”, though. I don’t agree, but courts are notoriously uptight.
I don't know if there's a specific legal meaning
legal jargon isn't always plain English
but it might be that the meaning there is the other English meaning of "impertinent":
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/impertinent
I mean, the term right before it in the code is "immaterial", which is very close to the second common-language definition. Just because it's archaic in common-language use doesn't mean that it is in the legal world
a lot of legal terms with jargon meanings were in common use at one point.
kagis
Yeah, sounds like it:
https://www.lsd.law/define/impertinent
A lawfirm's watermark being deemed irrelevant or inconsequential as grounds for dismissal of a complaint seems like a rule that never applies to anybody else.