Can you appeal a favorable ruling?

[stebbinsd]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Arkansas.

I've got a case - a REAL case - that I'm taking pro se in Arkansas Circuit Court. A dispositive motion has been granted in my favor, but this concerns a novel issue of law, so, unless it gets appealed, it won't have any precedential value.

I can't trust the Defendants in this case to appeal it, as I doubt they can afford to pay the court fees, whereas I can proceed in forma pauperis.

However, am I even allowed to appeal a case that I actually agree with, just so that it will set binding precedent and be easier to argue this same issue in the future? I'm willing to risk it backfiring and the appellate court overturning the District Court, but is this sort of thing even allowed?

 

[Tex78704]

This nonsense indicates you don't know what you are talking about.

Ordinarily, the prevailing party does not have standing to appeal because it is assumed that the judgment caused that party no injury. An exception to the rule exists where the prevailing party is prejudiced by the collateral effect of the district court's decision. Which would not apply to you. In turn the appeals court would lack jurisdiction to hear your case.

And just because you are allowed to proceed in forma pauperis, does not mean an appeals court will not order you to pay the other party's costs and attorney fees in that appeal, if they deem your appeal was frivolous. And filing an appeal for which you had no legal grounds would be deemed frivolous.

 

[justalayman]

Um, what would you base your appeal on? You know, that is what an appeal is; asking the courts to review a prior courts actions that were adverse to the appellant. So, what actions were adverse to you that would give you a basis for an appeal?

 

[Handcoc]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Arkansas. it won't have any precedential value.

It would not have any precedent value even if you could & did win an appeal. With pro se litigants they stamp "NON FOR PUBLICATION OR PRECEDENT" right on their opinion.

 

[Tex78704]

...With pro se litigants they stamp "NON FOR PUBLICATION OR PRECEDENT" right on their opinion.

That's baloney.

There are plenty of published pro se appeals. Although those that actually won are far and few between, and even fewer of any precedential worth.

 

[Handcoc]

That's baloney.

There are plenty of published pro se appeals. Although those that actually won are far and few between, and even fewer of any precedential worth.

Maybe 0.001% get through, not worth the effort IMO, even if he could, which he can't

 

[Zigner]

Maybe 0.001% get through, not worth the effort IMO, even if he could, which he can't

That's NOT what you said before.

Look, I understand you want to help, but please don't just post whatever pops in to your mind. CHECK it first.

 

[Handcoc]

That's NOT what you said before.

Look, I understand you want to help, but please don't just post whatever pops in to your mind. CHECK it first.

Check you tongue! What I said on both occasions is correct. Learn math.

 

[justalayman]

Check you tongue! What I said on both occasions is correct. Learn math.

if both statements were right:

It would not have any precedent value even if you could & did win an appeal. With pro se litigants they stamp "NON FOR PUBLICATION OR PRECEDENT" right on their opinion.

Maybe 0.001% get through, not worth the effort IMO, even if he could, which he can't

why do they not agree with each other? If one is right, the other can't be.

 

[Handcoc]

if both statements were right:
why do they not agree with each other? If one is right, the other can't be.

You know nothing about mathematics, do you?

You going to be arguing the uncertainty principle next?

Please let me know you highest level of mathematics achieved...algebra? Maybe.

Another useless post by JLM.

 

[justalayman]

You know nothing about mathematics, do you?

You going to be arguing the uncertainty principle next?

Please let me know you highest level of mathematics achieved...algebra? Maybe.

Another useless post by JLM.

you know nothing...period.

 

[Proserpina]

you know nothing...period.

Post hx certainly seems to suggest that, yeap.

 

[Tex78704]

...What I said on both occasions is correct. Learn math.

Handcoc, you imply you have a higher level of mathematical understanding than most, and yet you throw out a figure that "Maybe 0.001% (of pro se appeals) get through"?

0.001% equates to 1/100,000, and is an absurd figure in the context you suggest. And one which you presumably have nothing to back that up.

At one time I culled through dozens of state court of appeals rulings of pro se appeals in my state, and found one that actually won. And I know of one other pro se appeal outside my little research project which had also won. But these were not your average pro se litigants, and probably in the 95th percentile of educated pro se litigants.

Maybe you have enough mathematical/statistical skills to calculate the odds of my finding two cases out of a sample size of 50, if your expected odds are 1/100,000?

 

[cbg]

Regardless of the mathematical skills or lack thereof of any given responder, the OP's posting hx is an absolute must. Let's not overlook that factor.

 

[Handcoc]

Regardless of the mathematical skills or lack thereof of any given responder, the OP's posting hx is an absolute must. Let's not overlook that factor.

You are talking hahahaha. Look at yo trollin playar !