CITES BY TOPIC:  frivolous

Responding to "Frivolous" Penalties or Accusations, Form #05.027

Blacks Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, 1990, p. 668:

Frivolous.  Of little weight or importance.  A pleading is "frivolous" when it is clearly insufficient 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 opponent.  A claim or defense is frivolous if a proposent can present no rational argument based upon the evidence or law in support of that claim or defense.  Liebowitz v. Aimexco Inc., Col.App., 701 P.2d 140, 142.  Frivolous pleadings may be amended to proper form or ordered stricken under federal and state rules of civil procedure." 

[Blacks Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, 1990, p. 668]

Wilcox v. C.I.R., 848 F.2d. 1007 (C.A.9,1988)

An appeal is frivolous if the result is obvious, or the arguments of error are wholly without merit. DeWitt v. Western Pac. R.R., 719 F.2d 1448, 1451 (9th Cir.1983). This court has previously held that all of the contentions which Wilcox raises are frivolous or wholly without merit. See Carter, 784 F.2d at 1009; Nunley, 758 F.2d at 373; Rockwell, 512 F.2d at 887.

[Wilcox v. C.I.R., 848 F.2d. 1007 (C.A.9,1988)]

Lee v. Walman Optical Co., 8:14CV272, at *4 (D. Neb. Jan. 21, 2016)

“As construed by the Nebraska Supreme Court, "[t]he term 'frivolous' connotes an improper motive or legal position so wholly without merit as to be ridiculous." Cent . Nebraska Pub. Power & Irr. Dist. v. N. Platte Nat. Res. Dist., 788 N.W.2d 252, 263-64 (Neb. 2010). The term "has also been held to mean without rational argument based on law and evidence to support a litigant's position in the lawsuit." Randolph Oldsmobile Co . v. Nichols, 645 N.W.2d 566, 569 (Neb. App. 2002).”

[Lee v. Walman Optical Co., 8:14CV272, at *4 (D. Neb. Jan. 21, 2016);

EDITORIAL: The IRS and state tax authorities would have you believe that if a court has "rejected as frivolous" a legal argument in one case (or even in many cases) that this means the argument could not possibly have any legitimate basis in ANY case ever. This is NOT TRUE. While there ARE legal arguments made by taxpayers that have no basis in law and would ALWAYS be rejected as frivolous, some arguments that are rejected as frivolous actually DO have basis in law, and are rejected ONLY because the argument is IRRELEVANT in THAT case OR the argument is NOT supported by the evidence in THAT case. This case is a good explanation for why an argument could be rejected as frivolous in one case, yet be a legitimate argument in another case]