Victor Mignogna v. Funimation Productions, LLC, et al. (2019) - Vic's lawsuit against Funimation, VAs, and others, for over a million dollars.

Newfriend said:
Nigger are you seriously still arguing? I'm not telling you to admit defeat but you really should stop.
Click to expand...
Citation from Texas 5th court of appeals, Linda Dickens v. Jason Webster:

"Dickens argues the trial court erred by striking the amended counterclaim because Webster’s motion was for partial summary judgment. She cites no authority that a hearing on a motion for partial summary judgment is not a trial within the meaning of rule 63."

"A summary judgment hearing is a trial within the meaning of Rule 63. Contrary to Dickens’s argument, this principle extends to hearings on motions for partial summary judgment. "

I get that you all hate me because I'm not buying every argument Nick puts out as word of god even when it disagrees with the law and court rulings in Texas, but it's amazing how many people dumbspam me even on basic incontrovertible stuff. I came here to present a viewpoint that is sorely lacking here (all the other legal forums have no interest in this case because they are sure Vic is destined to lose because of Ty), so I knew what I signed up for, but damn if the response hasn't been more hostile than I expected.
 
  • Dumb
  • Informative
  • Mad at the Internet
Reactions: Coach Kreeton Of All That, Kosher Salt, Botchy Galoop and 12 others
DinkyCowSow said:
"Dickens argues the trial court erred by striking the amended counterclaim because Webster’s motion was for partial summary judgment. She cites no authority that a hearing on a motion for partial summary judgment is not a trial within the meaning of rule 63."

"A summary judgment hearing is a trial within the meaning of Rule 63. Contrary to Dickens’s argument, this principle extends to hearings on motions for partial summary judgment. "
Click to expand...
Come on I know you can read!!!

lets do this I even highlighted things for you.

Trial T R I A L it spells trial.

TCPA hearing T C P A it means Texas Civil Participation Act

Summary judgement hearing

Now follow along bird brain what are the three things we are trying to remember?

yes that's right Trial, TCPA, and Summary judgement hearing

It's important we remember these thing are not the same word. If you can remember this I will let you play with some toy trains.
 
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: Yuusha-sama, Wilhelm Bittrich, LuNaS and 10 others
DinkyCowSow said:
Citation from Texas 5th court of appeals, Linda Dickens v. Jason Webster:

"Dickens argues the trial court erred by striking the amended counterclaim because Webster’s motion was for partial summary judgment. She cites no authority that a hearing on a motion for partial summary judgment is not a trial within the meaning of rule 63."

"A summary judgment hearing is a trial within the meaning of Rule 63. Contrary to Dickens’s argument, this principle extends to hearings on motions for partial summary judgment. "

I get that you all hate me because I'm not buying every argument Nick puts out as word of god even when it disagrees with the law and court rulings in Texas, but it's amazing how many people dumbspam me even on basic incontrovertible stuff. I came here to present a viewpoint that is sorely lacking here (all the other legal forums have no interest in this case because they are sure Vic is destined to lose because of Ty),
Click to expand...

Which ones specifically? Go ahead and list them right here, faggot -------------->
 
DinkyCowSow said:
Citation from Texas 5th court of appeals, Linda Dickens v. Jason Webster:

"Dickens argues the trial court erred by striking the amended counterclaim because Webster’s motion was for partial summary judgment. She cites no authority that a hearing on a motion for partial summary judgment is not a trial within the meaning of rule 63."

"A summary judgment hearing is a trial within the meaning of Rule 63. Contrary to Dickens’s argument, this principle extends to hearings on motions for partial summary judgment. "

I get that you all hate me because I'm not buying every argument Nick puts out as word of god even when it disagrees with the law and court rulings in Texas, but it's amazing how many people dumbspam me even on basic incontrovertible stuff. I came here to present a viewpoint that is sorely lacking here (all the other legal forums have no interest in this case because they are sure Vic is destined to lose because of Ty), so I knew what I signed up for, but damn if the response hasn't been more hostile than I expected.
Click to expand...
the TCPA isn't a summary judgement, Summary Judgements have long been considered trials under Texas Precedent

There is no such caselaw for the TCPA, unless you can find me caselaw that calls the TCPA a Summary Judgement, fuck off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ConSluttant
DinkyCowSow said:
Citation from Texas 5th court of appeals, Linda Dickens v. Jason Webster:

"Dickens argues the trial court erred by striking the amended counterclaim because Webster’s motion was for partial summary judgment. She cites no authority that a hearing on a motion for partial summary judgment is not a trial within the meaning of rule 63."

"A summary judgment hearing is a trial within the meaning of Rule 63. Contrary to Dickens’s argument, this principle extends to hearings on motions for partial summary judgment. "

I get that you all hate me because I'm not buying every argument Nick puts out as word of god even when it disagrees with the law and court rulings in Texas, but it's amazing how many people dumbspam me even on basic incontrovertible stuff. I came here to present a viewpoint that is sorely lacking here (all the other legal forums have no interest in this case because they are sure Vic is destined to lose because of Ty), so I knew what I signed up for, but damn if the response hasn't been more hostile than I expected.
Click to expand...

Defendants all filed motions to dismiss under the TCPA, not motions for summary judgement.
If they wanted summary judgement they should have filed as such and probably would have had a somewhat easier time, you and the judge keep fucking this up.


2lolis1cup said:
Come on I know you can read!!!

lets do this I even highlighted things for you.

Trial T R I A L it spells trial.

TCPA hearing T C P A it means Texas Civil Participation Act

Summary judgement hearing

Now follow along bird brain what are the three things we are trying to remember?

yes that's right Trial, TCPA, and Summary judgement hearing

It's important we remember these thing are not the same word. If you can remember this I will let you play with some toy trains.
Click to expand...

TCPA hearings can be summary judgement hearings, but all the defendants filed motions to dismiss under the TCPA not summary judgement
 
NotaLolyer said:
Defendants all filed motions to dismiss under the TCPA, not motions for summary judgement.
If they wanted summary judgement they should have filed as such and probably would have had a somewhat easier time, you and the judge keep fucking this up.




TCPA hearings can be summary judgement hearings, but all the defendants filed motions to dismiss under the TCPA not summary judgement
Click to expand...
Wrong. TCPA hearings are never, ever summary judgement hearing
The TCPA provides for a motion to dismiss. Just a motion to Dismiss.

You can read the law! It doesn't have a Summary Judgement provision.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Demon Pimp of Razgriz
Sheryl Nome said:
Wrong. TCPA hearings are never, ever summary judgement hearing
The TCPA provides for a motion to dismiss. Just a motion to Dismiss.

You can read the law! It doesn't have a Summary Judgement provision.
Click to expand...
You’re not wrong, dismiss vs summary judgement depends entirely on jurisdiction and admittedly I’m drunk on cheap whiskey right now staring off my 4 day weekend so I probably just had the wrong TCPA in my head.

Texas is wacky.
 
I'm pretty sure Nick's right, those bench dismissals were pretty damn explicit and it would be difficult to argue otherwise.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: lemmiwinks
Sheryl Nome said:
I'm pretty sure Nick's right, those bench dismissals were pretty damn explicit and it would be difficult to argue otherwise.
Click to expand...
I honestly don't get why anyone argued otherwise. Sure they might VERY TECHNICALLY not count, but that is such a technicality you'd need to bring it to an appeals court anyway. For all intents and purposes, she is out unless Chupp reverses his decision explicitly.
 
Immaculate Ape said:
Until it's been made precedent, feelings don't mean anything, unless you're lawtwitter
Click to expand...

So far as I know the 1969 Dunn v. Dunn decision was never overruled, and the same principle was restated fairly recently.

The relevant section:

In Knox v. Long, 152 Tex. 291, 257 S.W.2d 289, 292 (1953), this Court set forth the rule regarding oral rendition of judgments.

"In Freeman on Judgments, 5th Ed., Vol. 1, Sec. 48, pp. 80 and 81, it is said that `the rendition of judgment is the pronouncement by the court of its conclusions and decision upon the matter submitted to it for adjudication' which `may be oral as well as written,' and that a judgment is `"rendered"' when the decision is officially announced either orally in open court or by memorandum filed with the clerk."
This rule giving validity to oral judgments from the bench is also recognized in Rule 306a, T.R.C.P., which provides in part that:

"Judges are directed to cause, and attorneys and clerks are directed to use their efforts to cause all judgments, decisions, and orders of any kind to be reduced to writing and signed by the trial judge and the date of signing stated therein; but absence of any such showing shall not invalidate any judgment or order."[1] [Emphasis added.]
The principle that an oral judgment by the court is valid is predicated upon the supporting principle that the entry of a trial judgment is only a ministerial act. Williams v. Wyrick, 151 Tex. 40, 245 S.W.2d 961 (1952); Bridgmen v. Moore, 143 Tex. 250, 183 S.W.2d 705 (1944); IV McDonald, Texas Civil Practice, § 17.05, p. 17 (1967 Supp.). Thus a written judgment signed by the trial judge is not a prerequisite *833 to the finality of a judgment. Texas State Board of Examiners in Optometry v. Lane, 337 S.W.2d 801, 804 (Tex.Civ. App.Ft. Worth 1960).
Click to expand...

The Texas rules have been modified since to make it explicit that deadline times at least in the trial court are calculated from the entry of a written judgment, but the general principle should still stand.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Kosher Salt, Yuusha-sama, The Demon Pimp of Razgriz and 8 others
AnOminous said:
So far as I know the 1969 Dunn v. Dunn decision was never overruled, and the same principle was restated fairly recently.

The relevant section:



The Texas rules have been modified since to make it explicit that deadline times at least in the trial court are calculated from the entry of a written judgment, but the general principle should still stand.
Click to expand...
have to wonder how chupp ordering marchi into mediation will affect that. It feels like an implicit reconsideration.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: lemmiwinks
DinkyCowSow said:
I came here to present a viewpoint that is sorely lacking here (all the other legal forums have no interest in this case because they are sure Vic is destined to lose because of Ty)
Click to expand...
Put up or shut up. From your past performance, I doubt you read *any* legal forum at all. And no, the absolute trashfire of a thread on Twitter manned by a deadbeat bankrupt lawyer who rejected his only possible lifetime legacy of reproducing is not considered a legal forum in any capacity.
Some viewpoints, such as worshipping the Spednaught and gladly serving it up your ass without question, might encounter hard push back. Just a tip.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Mad at the Internet
Reactions: Zero Day Defense, The Demon Pimp of Razgriz, Dr. Geronimo and 5 others
Would like to add that passing the Walmart store brand bar exam doesn't make you a lawyer just because you repeat the same lines lawtwitter has to say like a broken record.

Offering a different perspective is one thing but vomiting up the same exact shit ten different ways isn't a measure of intelligence or skill. If someone came in looking to validly discuss things instead of refuting every single thing that doesn't support the lawtwitter narrative most of us would be open to doing so.

But that would involve using more than half a brain cell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ConSluttant, Dr. Geronimo and lemmiwinks
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back