Legion World Forums LEGION OUTPOST Mission Monitor Board Quislet's Super Law Firm...of Space!

I have been commanded to open this thread.

Please post your Comic Book related legal questions and I will attempt to answer them.

Disclaimer: I will not be giving any legal advice that you should take. The information I give is for entertainment and education purposes only. If you have a real legal issue, you should consult a lawyer in your own area of the world.

If you punch someone who folds back the covers of your comics, can you claim extreme provocation by said person?

Yeah, what TS Debutante said, and what are the legal mumbo-jumbos that are keeping DC from publishing well deserved TPBs of The Legion? What's up with that?

You can claim whatever you like. Whether it will be believed is a question left to the trier of facts (Either the jury or the judge in a non-jury trial)

In a Criminal Trial, if you are believed, then you would get off.

In a Civil trial, even if believed, you would still be responsible for any damages caused by your actions (i.e. medical expenses, lost wages) You could have counter-sued for the cost of your damaged comic books and the damages would be off-set. although if your damages were only $2.50 and the other person had damagaes of $1000.00, you would still owe the difference.

There is no legal mubo-jumbo preventing DC from publishing a Legion TPB. As owners of the copyright for the Legion, they can do with it whatever they want. They could stop publishing anything if they wanted to, or they could sell the rights to Marvel, or they could publish a TPB.

Damn, Quis is extra-cute when he applies his book-learnin'!

Could the Siegel Estate's qwest to reclaim their copyright to Superman (and what is the status of that anyway) have any effect on Superboy, and such characters (i.e. the Legion) directly inspired by him?

Here's one for you Quis. Don't know if you know the answer or not.

All of these court shows on TV where, say, the plantiff wins the case and is awarded their $5000 (or whatever). How is that enforced? Do these participants receive a numeration for appearing on the show and then if they lose their case their 'pay' is applied to the awarded amount?

I don't know the status of that case.

Presumably if the Siegal Estate wins, they could claim royalties on the characters derived from Superman. Superboy and Supergirl would be easy to claim, the Legion would be a harder sell. But if they would have to file a new lawsuit if they didn't make a claim for those characters in the initial lawsuit.

I am not sure on exact enforcement procedures and it probably varies from state to state. But basically, if you get a court judgement, and the person doesn't pay, you go to the court and say "Hey! That so-and-so isn't paying" the Court then can order property seized, wages garnished, or throwing the so-and-so in jail.

As for the TV verdicts, I am assuming that both parties sign a contract to abid by the judgement. So I think if the so-and-so doesn't pay, the other one has to go to court to and sue to enforce the contract. Then if the party suing is successful there (basically the so-and-so would have to show that the contract was no good and would not be able to re-try, or as we lawyers say "Take another bite of the apple", the underlying case that was argued before Judge Judy), they go through the same enforcement procedures as above.

I also don't know if the parties are paid or not. Assuming that they are, it would probably be in the contract they sign for appearing that determines what happens to their "Pay" if the verdict is against them.

If you represented Charma's estate and wanted to bring action against those who caused her death, how would you do so?

If I remember correctly, Charma was put into a female prison and the other inmates attacked her and beat her to death, right?

Well, first I would go after the deep pockets aka the government. The actual inmates woould not be worth suing as most likely they would not be able to pay any judgement.

I would argue that the government was negligent in putting Charma in with a population that would result in her being killed or severely injured.

Ohh, and here I thought the answer would be "very carefully!"

Ohh, and here I thought the answer would be "very carefully!"

Ohh, and here I thought the answer would be "very carefully!"

Ohh, and here I thought the answer would be "very carefully!"

Varalent, are you part Craggite?

How long would Holt and Mekt have to have been together before Holt could sue Mekt for palimony in the event of a breakup?

Could be I understand my dad was a rather randy character!

Still with the Charma question: if your goal was reform of the system so similar things wouldn't happen again, would you still go for the money? Is that the only remedy?

Well palimony is just alimony for unwed couples. Some states do not allow palimony, stating "If they wanted the protections of marriage (alimony) then they should have gotten married!"

Alimony itself is really decided on a case by case basis and the length of the marriage (or relationship) is just one of the factors considered. Another factor is the ability of the party requesting the alimony to earn a living. Alimony can be temporary even if the person receiving it doesn't get remarried.

A rule of thumb for the length of the marriage is 10 years. That doesn't mean you autmatically get it if you've been married for more than 10 years and it doesn't mean you'll automatically be denied if married for less than 10 years.


Side note: Rule of thumb - This phrase comes from the old law that a man could beat his wife as long as the stick was no bigger around than his thumb.

Now there's a derivation that I had never run across. Isn't it amazing where some of our most common expressions come from?

In a wrongful death claim, money is the only remedy. Unless we were in the DC Universe where and the government was able to bring Charma back to life.

Now some say that the judgement would go to reforming the system, because now there would be a precedent set where future litigants would have an easier time in suing for similar circumstances. And the loser (in this case the government) would have incentive to change the policy or face other lawsuits for similar things.

In other cases, Injunction and/or specific performances can be requested and granted. However courts are wary of doing so. But will do so, if there appears to be no other recourse.

If your goal is to reform the system, appealing to the legislature would be the more appropriate method of change.

Note: The Mass ruling on Same-sex marriage. The ruling first declared that the prohibition on granting marriage licences to same-sex couples was unconsitutional (Mass Constitution), gave the legislature 6 months to do something, at the end of six months, the case goes back to the Superior court for a new ruling consistant with the opinion. (The original superior court ruled that the prohibition was legal, basically)

What about Space-Palimony?

Why do they even bother doing things like this! The lower court has come to a different conclusion based on the facts presented. I find it unlikely in most cases that the higher court's ruling is going to change the other judges' opinion. So in effect, they are being instructed to rule contrary to their belief or opinion. Seems wrong to me. Just overturn and leave it at that.