Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

interrogatories

Read a random definition: qualified veto

A quick definition of interrogatories:

Interrogatories are written questions that one party sends to another during a legal case to gather information. Attorneys can ask anything related to the facts of the case, but not pure legal theory. The responding party has 30 days to answer each question fully, and if they refuse, the interrogating party can compel them to respond.

A more thorough explanation:

Interrogatories are written questions that one party sends to another as part of the discovery process in a legal case. The purpose of interrogatories is to gather information that will be used in trial.

Attorneys can ask any question that is relevant to the case and not privileged. This means that they can ask about facts or how the law applies to the facts, but they cannot ask purely legal questions. For example, they can ask about specific statements made by a plaintiff, but they cannot ask why a statute does not violate the constitution.

Interrogatories must be responded to by the party being asked the questions within 30 days. The responding party must fully answer each question, but they can object to the questions if they believe they are not relevant or privileged. If a party refuses to respond to an interrogatory, the other party can compel them to respond.

For example, in a case where a plaintiff is suing a union for violating their rights, the plaintiff's attorney might send interrogatories asking for specific examples of the union's actions that violated their rights. The union's attorney would then have to respond within 30 days with a full answer to each question.

interrogation | interrogatory

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
texaslawhopefully
22:30
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That all sounds great. It sounds like it has fairly diverse cuisine for a smaller city
yeah there are so many good cuisines in ithaca
renard99
22:31
@lilypadfrog: that’s a pity I’da be liking them all
texaslawhopefully
22:31
Only food I’m going to miss for sure if I leave Texas is texmex
22:31
waspy hasnt had thai food in ithaca yet. ithaca thai is so good
^^^^ truuuuuu
22:32
there are two major thai places and they have very similar names bc a divorced husband and wife own them lol
22:32
personally i think taste of thai is better than taste of thai express but thats just me
i had pho tho and it was really good and huge portions
texaslawhopefully
22:32
Glad they have good Thai food, I love Thai food! Can’t wait to visit :)
22:33
when tex goes to ithaca i want to come
Dkk
22:34
Crying Tiger, best Thai dish.
damn im so hungry all i had today was a curry tonkatsu and buldak
and it was a lil baby noodle cup
vvv hungry
22:36
curry tonkatsu so yummeh
22:36
whats even open rn? pizza?
CTB is it i think
22:37
is collegetown pizza not open
22:37
i used to get a slice from there or wings over at like 1am after my shift at the restaurant
Dkk
22:48
Ross Ulbricht free. God Bless Trump. Huge win.
JeremyFragrance
22:54
agreed
texaslawhopefully
22:55
This is an interesting read: https://thedispatch.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-implications/
Dkk
23:01
I mean, idk how it's possible to end birth right citizenship without amending the constitution because to me the 14th amendment is pretty clear about it.
ross ulbricht tried to hire a hitman to kill 5 people
i am not that sympathetic to him
Dkk
23:04
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That might have been an FBI agent. It was most likely him and he was most likely doing it to retrieve stolen funds that corrupt FBI agents stole, but yeah moral gray area but me personally, cool with hitmen. It's not like it is uncommon to hire hitmen. I don't think the action itself is necessarily wrong but the intent behind it can be.
Dkk
23:05
Like, Boeing whistblowers being killed by hitmen = wrong but a guy hiring hitmen to retrieve stolen funds = good to me.
texaslawhopefully
23:05
@Dkk: Yeah, for sure. My guess is it'll go to SCOTUS and it'll be 8-1 or 7-2, saying that EO was unconstitutional.
Dkk
23:06
Indeed. I need a count for how many exectuive orders he has signed and how many already have pending lawsuits.
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.