• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Publishing Small claim court settlement

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

brooklynny

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
New York

Hi guys,
Is it legal to publish online the settlement of a Small Claim court between 2 parties if they were not able to reach a settlement and went by the court?
 


You Are Guilty

Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
New York

Hi guys,
Is it legal to publish online the settlement of a Small Claim court between 2 parties if they were not able to reach a settlement and went by the court?
Huh?

If they were not able to reach a settlement, what is it exactly you want to "publish" :confused:
 

seniorjudge

Senior Member
Q: Is it legal to publish online the settlement of a Small Claim court between 2 parties if they were not able to reach a settlement and went by the court?

A: Yes, it is legal to publish public information.
 

jdawg83

Member
OP your posting makes no sense, why don't you clarify what you really want to know.

Oh this might be like a game! Let me see if I can figure it out.

You and the opposing Party went to a settlement agreement, you both tried to settle, one of you didn't like the offer and rejected it, and the other party posted the settlement on a blog or some random place. You asking if its legal means you want to know if you can sue for it...

Family Feud time..

"Survey Says"

X
 

brooklynny

Junior Member
I'm sorry if i confused you.
What i mean is if the other party and I don't find an agreement before we go by the court, and the court decide in my favor, can i publish the result of the court decision online, on forums &/or on a local newspaper?
 
Last edited:

dcatz

Senior Member
OP – My initial response was the same as YAG’s, and I’m still left to wonder what you’re doing and why. I honestly don’t want a response, but I would caution you against taking SJ's assurance that “it’s legal to publish public information” too broadly. I don’t know of a SC trial or appeal court that generates transcripts or opinions. Most public information is of the nature of “Jack sued John. Breach of contract. Jack prevailed - $1,000 and costs.” If you report what is not “of record”, you will have crossed a line. If you purport to narrate “he said . . . .” and then I said . . . .” in the courtroom, it’s likely that you will have crossed a line.

If you have no intention of doing anything like that, just disregard the warning. However, yours might seem a strange post. It did to me, and I thought an extra word of caution was justified.
 

jdawg83

Member
As long as the OP fairly and accurately reports the Court's decision it is privileged, from the OP's follow up reply it seems like the OP just wants to post if its a success or failure, that is fine because it is public record, so SJ would be correct

dcatz you are also correct, if you cite or say something that is not of record and the opposing party feels as though you are misrepresenting the truth, and you have nothing on record to support what you say...you are opening the door for Libel and/or defamation of character.
 

dcatz

Senior Member
Why thank you. Silly me; I honestly thought that I had made all that clear, including an acknowledgement of SJ’s post. Before you clarified it further, I would have thought that the only thing added by your further post was speculation on the OP’s intentions. I think it’s presumptuous and dangerous to speculate in that manner and I try to avoid it, but that’s just me. I see that you have no such compunctions. Well, from each according to his abilities.

I had a quizzical feeling about the OP’s intentions. If I had not, I would not have bothered to post. I don’t post unless there is something substantive to contribute. That philosophy is not universally shared. I could have left the thread to conclude with your reference to somebody else’s response. I felt an additional word of caution was warranted. The fact that you didn't is of no consequence.
 

jdawg83

Member
dcatz: im not slamming your or down playing what you said, but you were vague as to what you were "warning" or giving "caution" about. Its like telling a kid not to touch the stove, the kid is going to wonder why not, and you tell them its because its hot, it will burn you, etc.

All I was doing was taking away the questioning, because if i was the OP I would want to know what would happen if, and you never covered that. There was no disrespect intended, and if you feel that I did, I apologize.
 

dcatz

Senior Member
I appreciate the sentiment. I am abject that you were confused, but the possibility that you know enough to slam me would never cross my mind. I trust you were the only one confused and I don’t post for you. This dialogue is boring and will stop. I think you mimic other members’ answers well and may make a contribution when you learn to provide substantive advice on your own. I've yet to see that happen. I don’t admire derision or condescension at the expense of the posters, but the member to whom you explained “this funny little document called the US Constitution” and the “lingo” used here may have thought the same thing; the thread died. Posters also separate the wheat from the chaff.
 

jdawg83

Member
Dcatz: While I appreciate the sarcasm and demeanor of your reply, you show that you know little yourself.

I am happy that you feel that I "mimic" other members, and your point of view is that you have yet to see me give advice is a poor judgment call on your part.

Prime example

https://forum.freeadvice.com/civil-litigation-46/can-someone-u-s-sue-somone-u-k-439001.html

So while you believe that because you "know more than me" and feel that I was confused, shows poor judgment on your part. As you pointing out "the funny little thing called the constitution", while no one knows every aspect of every single law in every single jurisdiction in every single county, the constitution grants one the right to self-representation, and really and truly I feel that it was better that way, I find it unfair that someone that can't afford an attorney has to go up against one. I think we all have seen cases where even if one party is telling the absolute truth, they still lose.

Your last sentence strikes me as you missing the bigger picture. If an answer is obvious why does it take 4 or 5 people to say the same thing...it doesn't. Your posting in this thread came after everyone else posted, yet you find it absurd that I resound questionable postings with reassurance that not just ONE person feels that way.

Get over yourself
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top