Supreme Court - Williams case - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Nov 11, 2004

Supreme Court - Williams case

Date: Nov 12, 2004

Well, there went by the normal half hour with the paper on the deck! I read it all. I'm not sure I understand it all, but it looks like that was a real mess.

Date: Nov 12, 2004

I am not a legal professional nor do I claim to be, but my understanding of the text provided is that:

1. USM was found guilty

2. Because of Mississippi law, the reward of $800,000 was found to be in error and a new trial will be held to decide what amount (if any) will be given.

3. Williams may not receive any money at all

Anyone else have a different take?

Date: Nov 12, 2004

Can this be summarized by saying the higher court upheld the USM appeal and overturned the $800,000 award to Williams while also suggesting that it is a good breach of contract case that should be retried in the lower court for a lesser amount in damages?

This is why cases settle...

Date: Nov 12, 2004

But in order to settle, both parties must be willing to settle. Kim Chaze is not hired cheaply, and the USM attorneys know that. The individuals named in the suit don't hire the attorneys who represent USM, the taxpayers do. USM will play the appeals game in every case brought against them because it's the taxpayers money and not their individual money at stake. I'd bet my bottom dollar (IRONY) that the Williams woman would be and has been willing to settle - USM won't do it because it has the resources to drag it out and her down. The message: Don't "mess" with the "Miss". But they are playing with other people's money, and there is the other part of the injustice. The IHL should be called to task, once again, for allowing this.

Date: Nov 12, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Emma
"But in order to settle, both parties must be willing to settle. Kim Chaze is not hired cheaply, and the USM attorneys know that. The individuals named in the suit don't hire the attorneys who represent USM, the taxpayers do. USM will play the appeals game in every case brought against them because it's the taxpayers money and not their individual money at stake. I'd bet my bottom dollar (IRONY) that the Williams woman would be and has been willing to settle - USM won't do it because it has the resources to drag it out and her down. The message: Don't "mess" with the "Miss". But they are playing with other people's money, and there is the other part of the injustice. The IHL should be called to task, once again, for allowing this."

Kim Chaze takes the cases for one third of whatever the case is settled/adjudicated for. This is the standard contingency fee for legal work. He does not work on these cases at an hourly rate. So no monetary compensation means that Kim does not get a pay day. He does charge a retainer and the last time I had current information it was $3500. You are right that USM with the taxpayers money continually drags their feet and that includes appealing verdicts. If you will remember after the recent Ann Jordan case, Lee Gore was quoted as saying that "we repect jury's decision, but we are naturally going to appeal." If they respect the jury's decision, then they would not appeal them.

Date: Nov 12, 2004

His retainer fees vary from 3500 to 10,000. If cases go to appeals, he charges another fee -- nothing near to what his work hours are involved, but fees exist all the same. Then there are court costs. Kim Chaze is apparently worth every nickle however, and he is not alone. On the other hand you have Hanbury, Dvorak, Holmes . . . . I tend to actually like Lee Gore because I've been under the impression that somehow SFT doesn't.

Date: Nov 19, 2004

This case has been explained to me in more detail. The person explaining knows the case thoroughly. He ought to.

The Supreme Court, upon the appeal, found USM even more guilty than before and DW is more than likely going to receive at least 200,000 more than the first settlement. Arrogance can get you into trouble.