Black's Law Dictionary

What Hacker News says

1. will_brownAug 2016
   >We have already established that I don't agree that this is a true statement, and you've said nothing which could change my mind...

   You need to start at the very beginning, the definition of legal right. Black's Law Dictionary is a good place to start. Basically a legal right is something the law provides a legal remedy for if violated. Since you don't think the victim in this case had a right not to be kicked and punched against her will, I am really curious what you definition of legal right is.

   In this case the victim had a lawful right not to be kicked and punched against her will, and when she was the law provides her with remedies (both in the criminal and civil context). Note when ones rights are violated in the criminal context (e.g. you are a victim of a crime) that triggers yet more rights, including but not limited to, the right to be present, the right to be protected, and the right to privacy. [1]

   Just as an intellectual challenge try to conceive of being the victim of a crime, any crime, in which the law does not provide you with a remedy. And yes, even when a victim has been killed, the law still provides a remedy, for example, your family can sue civilly and/or be present during the criminal case and even make recommendations to the prosecutor.

   [1] https://www.victimlaw.org/victimlaw/pages/victimsRight.jsp

   Show morethread
2. eadlerOct 2024
   Pre-dispute arbitration agreements are vile. There is some legit support for reforming courts, or providing less formal access to courts, but the current US arbitration system meets all three definitions [0] of 'Kangaroo Court'

   (some background)

   I've been spending more than a year learning everything I can about arbitration.

   1. https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/problems/ - a detailed, well sourced, listing arbitration problems. I also include positives there. While its biased, it isn't actually biased against arbitration. It is biased in favour of fairness and consumer rights.

   2. Every reference used on the website and many more: https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/references/ -- I have ready everything listed here in full including every footnote.

   3. Every supreme court case (and some none USSC) case related. https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/arbitration/ -- I have ready everything listed here in full including every footnote.

   4. I've also read a lot not linked here. I don't include it because I've not yet read in full. I have a backlog of over 265 items to read. I intend to get to them all.

   6. I am not an attorney. However, I am deeply familiar with law, have taken the same classes that lawyers take for continuing education (CLE courses) on the topic, and have attended (and will continue to attend) academic conferences on the topic.

   7. Real lawyers - including some who have argued cases in front of the supreme court - on cases listed above - have told me that my website is both thorough and accurate. I'd include their endorsements, but I have not yet asked them for permission. Also, the site changes over time and I'd want to figure out a way to make to indicate which version of the site they endorsed.

   8. On a personal note: I really dislike falsehoods and unfairness. I am almost obsessive on learning everything I can on this topic. Seriously.

   9. I suspect, with good reason, that I can be reasonably be considered an 'expert' on the topic. The only people who know more than me on the topic are likely attorneys who specifically get paid to work on this area (consumer/employment/financial arbitration)

   10A. I do have some blind spots: (a) I am not an attorney by training or trade. (b) I have been a client in arbitration but not a representative. Since arbitration is often confidential, and they aren't courts of record, its hard to learn about what actually happens inside the process.

   10B. However, I am working on fixing this as much as I can. I'm in touch with both attorneys, academics, and (soon) arbitration providers to see what I could learn. I'm still working on figuring some additional ways to learn more.

   [0] Kangaroo Court—Black’s Law Dictionary—Ninth Edition. (2009). In Bryan A. Garner (Ed.), Black’s Law Dictionary (Ninth Edition, p. 409). WEST - Thomson Reuters. ↩

   Show morethread
3. eadlerOct 2024
   Pre-dispute arbitration agreements are vile. There is some legit support for reforming courts, or providing less formal access to courts, but the current US arbitration system meets all three definitions [0] of 'Kangaroo Court'

   (some background)

   I've been spending more than a year learning everything I can about arbitration.

   1. https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/problems/ - a detailed, well sourced, listing arbitration problems. I also include positives there. While its biased, it isn't actually biased against arbitration. It is biased in favour of fairness and consumer rights.

   2. Every reference used on the website and many more: https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/references/ -- I have ready everything listed here in full including every footnote.

   3. Every supreme court case (and some none USSC) case related. https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/arbitration/ -- I have ready everything listed here in full including every footnote.

   4. I've also read a lot not linked here. I don't include it because I've not yet read in full. I have a backlog of over 265 items to read. I intend to get to them all.

   6. I am not an attorney. However, I am deeply familiar with law, have taken the same classes that lawyers take for continuing education (CLE courses) on the topic, and have attended (and will continue to attend) academic conferences on the topic.

   7. Real lawyers - including some who have argued cases in front of the supreme court - on cases listed above - have told me that my website is both thorough and accurate. I'd include their endorsements, but I have not yet asked them for permission. Also, the site changes over time and I'd want to figure out a way to make to indicate which version of the site they endorsed.

   8. On a personal note: I really dislike falsehoods and unfairness. I am almost obsessive on learning everything I can on this topic. Seriously.

   9. I suspect, with good reason, that I can be reasonably be considered an 'expert' on the topic. The only people who know more than me on the topic are likely attorneys who specifically get paid to work on this area (consumer/employment/financial arbitration)

   10A. I do have some blind spots: (a) I am not an attorney by training or trade. (b) I have been a client in arbitration but not a representative. Since arbitration is often confidential, and they aren't courts of record, its hard to learn about what actually happens inside the process.

   10B. However, I am working on fixing this as much as I can. I'm in touch with both attorneys, academics, and (soon) arbitration providers to see what I could learn. I'm still working on figuring some additional ways to learn more.

   [0] Kangaroo Court—Black’s Law Dictionary—Ninth Edition. (2009). In Bryan A. Garner (Ed.), Black’s Law Dictionary (Ninth Edition, p. 409). WEST - Thomson Reuters.

   Show morethread
4. seventyoneJun 2024
   Yes, the courts will lean on legal dictionaries such as Black's Law Dictionary and Ballentine's Law Dictionary.

   reasonable. Not extreme. Not arbitrary, capricious, or confiscatory. Public Service Com, v Haverneyer, 296 US 506, 80 L Ed 357, 56 S Ct 360.

   "What is reasonable depends upon a variety of considerations and circumstances. It is an elastic term which is of uncertain value in a definition." Sussex Land & Live Stock Co. v Midwest Refining Co. (CA8 Wyo) 294 F 597, 34 ALR 249, 257.

   Show morethread
5. JumpCrisscrossMay 2024
   > very clearly describes the term as applicable to any legal action…only first encountering the claim that it shouldn't be used for civil cases here in this thread, today

   Partly why I used that citation. It’s one of the few (adult) dictionaries that acknowledges as much.

   I wouldn’t go so far as to say the Webster 3b usage is incorrect—it’s in some dictionaries and was historically unambiguously correct. But it’s non-standard to a high degree, to the extent that Black’s Law Dictionary only contains the criminal variant. (I’ll leave it open whether publicly referring to someone who has only been sued as someone who has been prosecuted, when intended as an attack, qualifies as defamation.)

   More to the point of clear communication, I’d put it in a similar category as claiming one’s usage of terrific or silly was intended in its historic sense [1]. (Though I’ll admit my use of “nice” falls in that category.)

   All that said, I’m very willing to entertain there being a dialect, probably in America, where the historic use is still common.

   [1] https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/84307/7-words-mean-oppos...

   Show morethread
6. nickburnsApr 2024
   in first-year 'Contracts,' 1L's study that the 'fair market value' of any good or service is defined by Black's Law Dictionary, amongst elsewhere, as "[t]he price that a seller is willing to accept and a buyer is willing to pay on the open market and in an arm's-length transaction [ . . . ]"

   this definition captures the actual sale price of almost any transaction imaginable quite comprehensively—which is what most people are really asking when curious about the 'value' of a good, like a precious gemstone, or a service.

   NB: 'value' is defined by the same as "1. The significance, desirability, or utility of something" or "2. The monetary worth or price of something; the amount of goods, services, or money that something commands in exchange." 'markup' as "[a]n amount added to an item's cost to determine its selling price."

   Show morethread