Frivolous

Defined in 5 dictionaries — Ballentine's (1916), Bouvier (1914), Black's (1910), Black's (1891), Anderson (1889)

Ballentine's Law Dictionary

James A. Ballentine · 1916

So palpably insufficient as to show lack of good faith, as a pleading, argument, motion, objection. See 53 N. Y. 497.

Bouvier's Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia

John Bouvier; revised by Francis Rawle · 1914

An answer or plea Is frivolous which controverts no material allegation in the complaint, and which is manifestly insufficient. Under the English common-law amendment act, and by the codes of some of the states, the court Is authorized to strike out such a plea, so that the plaintiff can obtain judgment without awaiting the regular call of the cause; Lefferts v. Sned- Iker, 1 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 41; New Jersey Zinc Co. V. Blood, 8 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 149; Brown V. Jenison, 3 Sandf. (N. Y.) 7.32; Dobson v. Hallowell, 53 Minn. 98, 54 N. W. 939; Lerdall V. Ins. Co., 51 Wls. 430, 8 N. W. 280. See Rubber Co. v. Mc Allester, 1 Misc. 483, 21 N. y. Supp. 767. An answer cannot be stricken out on the ground that it is frivolous, where an extended argument or illustration is required to demonstrate its frailty; Deuel v. Sanford, 67 How. Prac. (N. Y.) 354; Exchange Fire Ins. Co. of New York City v. Norris, 74 Hun 527, 26 N. Y. Supp. 823. A pleading Interposed for delay is frivolous, but a pleading is not frivolous because vague; Farmers’ & Millers’ Bank v. Sawyer, 7 Wls. 383; Kelly V. Barnett, 16 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 136; Yerkes V. Crum, 2 N. D. 72, 49 N. W. 422. Frivolous is not synonymous with irrelevant; Fasnacht v. Stehn, 6 Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. y.) 338, 343; id., 63 Barb. (N, Y.) 650.

Black's Law Dictionary

Henry Campbell Black, M.A. · 1910

An answer or plea is called "frivolous" when it is clearly insufficient on iis face, and does not controvert the materlal points of the opposite pleading, and is presumably interposed for mere purposes of delay or to embarrass the plaintiff. Erwin v. Lowery, 64 N. C. 321; Strong v. Sproul, 53 N. Y. 499; Gray v. Gidiere, 4 Strob. (S. C.) 442; Peacock v. Williams (C. Ct) 110 Fed. 916. A frivolous demurrer has been defined to be one which is so clearly untenable, or its insufficiency so manifest upon a bare inspection of the pleadings, that its character may be determined without argument or research. Cottrill v. Cramer, 40 Wis. 558. Synonyms. The terms "frivolous" and "sham," as applied to pleadings, do not mean the same thing. A sham plea is good on its face, but false in fact; it may, to all appearances, constitute a perfect defense, but is a pretence because false and because not pleaded in good faith. A frivolous plea may be perfectly true in its allegations, but yet is liable to be stricken out because totally insufficient in substance. Andreæ v. Bandler (Sup.) 56 N. Y. Supp. 614; Brown v. Jenison, 1 Code R. N. S. (N. Y.) 157.

A Dictionary of Law

Henry Campbell Black · 1891

An answer or plea is called “frivolous” when itis clearly insuticient on its face, and does not controvert the material points of the opposite pleading, and is presumably interposed for mere purposes of delay or to embarrass the plaintiff. A frivolous demurrer has heen defined to be one which ig so clearly untenable, or its insullicieney so manifest upon a bare inspection of the pleadings, that its character may be determined without argument or research. 40 Wis. 558.

A Dictionary of Law

William C. Anderson · 1889

Is applied to an answer, plea, or objection which upon its face is clearly insufficient in law, and apparently made for purposes of delay or to embarrass an adversary. An answer is frivolous when it controverts no material allegation in the complaint, and presents no tenable defense; * when it sets up a matter which may be true in fact, but forms no defense. A sham or false answer may be good in form, but false in fact.= See Sham. To constitute a pleading frivolous, it must be ap- 1 Clark V. The Queen, 14 Q. B. D. 98 (1884), Grove, J.; Vagrant Act, 5 Geo. IV (1835), c. 83. 'Ibid. 101-2, Hawkins, J. s See 3 Bl. Com. 300- Herzberg v. Sachse, 60 Md. 438 (1883). *Lef Eerts v. Snediker, 1 Abb. Pr. o. s. 48 (1854); Brown v. Jennison, 3 Sandf. L. T32 (1851); Lerdall v. parent on mere inspection, without examination or research, that it is utterly invalid.' When it needs argument to prove that an answer or demurrer is frivolous, it is not frivolous. ' A pleading seen to be frivolous, upon bare inspection, will be stricken off by the court.'