- Joined
- Jun 5, 2026
- Messages
- 590
- Thread Author
- #1
Username: zPokebr_
I am representing myself.
What Case are you Appealing?: [2026] DCR 131
Link to the Original Case: zPokebr_ v. mvchrelle [2026] DCR 131
Reason for Appeal: Court Made a Error on Law. (JSA, Part VI, 2(a), Court Rule 8.4)
1) Misapplication of the Double Recovery Doctrine
The Honorable Justice stated on Nuisance Claim:
The presiding Honorable Judicial Officer erred in the disposition of the Nuisance claim by misapplying the doctrine against double recovery.
According to RCCA, Part II, 7
Double Recovery, as per the civil law, bars a plaintiff from "receiving compensation for the same loss more than once", not from recovering under two claims that happen to arise from the same underlying conduct. A single act can give rise to multiple legal claims, provided the injuries themselves are different. Plaintiff's claims are different, as summarized below.
Nuisance protects the Plaintiff’s right to peacefully use and enjoy C644. The interference and distress caused by the armed attack constitute harm to that property interest independently of any impact on customers or third parties.
Tortious Interference with Business Relations, by contrast, protects the Plaintiff's prospective economic relationships with third parties. It compensates for the loss of those commercial relationships and the revenue they would have generated going forward.
2) Misapplication of the Statutory Nuisance Civil Tort
The Honorable Justice stated on Nuisance Claim:
However, Nuisance only have 4 statutory requirements:
Plaintiff proved all statutory requirements during DCR 131.
Furthermore, per Nuisance Tort, an unreasonable (offensive to a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position) non consented interference with use and enjoyment is enought to create a Standing for this claim.
Nothing in the tort requires the interference to constitute a breach of an ongoing and settled use of the property as a prerequisite for liability. By requiring this, the Court imported a durational requirement that appears nowhere in elements.
Based on the previous allegations, Plaintiff claims that the case's Verdict was judicially flawed, and seeks for review De Novo on this Apelle Court.
Are you requesting oral argument: No.
Supporting Evidence:
Redmont Civil Code Act
I am representing myself.
What Case are you Appealing?: [2026] DCR 131
Link to the Original Case: zPokebr_ v. mvchrelle [2026] DCR 131
Reason for Appeal: Court Made a Error on Law. (JSA, Part VI, 2(a), Court Rule 8.4)
1) Misapplication of the Double Recovery Doctrine
The Honorable Justice stated on Nuisance Claim:
The presiding Honorable Judicial Officer erred in the disposition of the Nuisance claim by misapplying the doctrine against double recovery.
According to RCCA, Part II, 7
Double Recovery, as per the civil law, bars a plaintiff from "receiving compensation for the same loss more than once", not from recovering under two claims that happen to arise from the same underlying conduct. A single act can give rise to multiple legal claims, provided the injuries themselves are different. Plaintiff's claims are different, as summarized below.
Nuisance protects the Plaintiff’s right to peacefully use and enjoy C644. The interference and distress caused by the armed attack constitute harm to that property interest independently of any impact on customers or third parties.
Tortious Interference with Business Relations, by contrast, protects the Plaintiff's prospective economic relationships with third parties. It compensates for the loss of those commercial relationships and the revenue they would have generated going forward.
2) Misapplication of the Statutory Nuisance Civil Tort
The Honorable Justice stated on Nuisance Claim:
However, Nuisance only have 4 statutory requirements:
Plaintiff proved all statutory requirements during DCR 131.
Furthermore, per Nuisance Tort, an unreasonable (offensive to a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position) non consented interference with use and enjoyment is enought to create a Standing for this claim.
Nothing in the tort requires the interference to constitute a breach of an ongoing and settled use of the property as a prerequisite for liability. By requiring this, the Court imported a durational requirement that appears nowhere in elements.
Based on the previous allegations, Plaintiff claims that the case's Verdict was judicially flawed, and seeks for review De Novo on this Apelle Court.
Are you requesting oral argument: No.
Supporting Evidence:
Redmont Civil Code Act