Re: question for drew (for Why Chat)

Posted by tuffenuff (68.33.0.56) on January 06, 2004 at 08:09:34:

In Reply to: Re: question for drew posted by Why Chat on January 05, 2004 at 16:02:39:

Your answer reminds me of a vehicle emissions law in some states. The state says your automobile must meets certain minimum guidelines with respect to emissions. If your car fails the first time, the state says to make the necessary repairs to your car and have it tested again. If it fails again, the state then says that if you can prove that you spent at least $200 trying to get the car to pass the emissions test, even though the car failed - the state will give you a pass. I never understood this logic. If your car is required to pass and it doesn't, you fail. Simple as that! And it shouldn't matter how much you spent trying to get it to pass.

In the same vein, we all know why states have statutes of limitations. Before a lawsuit is filed, why don't the courts require the plaintiff certify under penalties of perjury that the lawsuit is not time-barred? Either it's wrong to file a time-barred lawsuit, or it ain't. If it's wrong (and we all know that it is), the courts should have a mechanism in place to prevent plaintiffs from filing time-barred lawsuits. Please explain the logic (if any) should you have any thoughts on the subject!!

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup