Judge Chastices Plaintiff For Not Using Google
InternetCases.com notes that in a recent case, the court chastised a plaintiff for not using Google. In Munster v. Groce in Indiana, the court had to determine if the plaintiff had used “due diligence” to locate the missing defendant. Namely, it had to decide if enough effort had been put in to find the guy. The court ruled that Munster had not, because a simple Google search found the defendant’s address, as well as enough information to contact several relatives.
No matter what you are researching, it is always a good idea to check Google, no matter how much other information you have.
(via Tamara Thompson > Findory)
I might as well have a permanent image that says “via Findory” on every post, just to save time. I get so much info through that excellent service
Don’t Come To Court If You Haven’t Searched Properly!
Even the courts know the Internet is the first place to turn for information from InternetCases.com, spotted via InsideGoogle, has an interesting tidbit where a court chastised a plaintiff in a case for not trying to locate a missing defendant by searc…
Trackback by Search Engine Watch Blog | June 22, 2005
Thanks, Nathan! Glad to hear Findory is working well for you!
Comment by Greg Linden | June 22, 2005
I agree. Findory is bottomless. It keeps throwing up relevant info for every search I enter. Wicked
I shall make us a button or something soon.
Comment by Coolz0r | June 22, 2005
And it has been pointed at the Morris enquiry into the Dr Death Patel’s activities in Bundaberg, if the Queensland Medical Registration Board had bothered to google the doctor’s name they would have found out that he had been stopped from practicing medicine in the US and probably prevented some 90 patient deaths.
Comment by Albatross2147 | June 23, 2005
A Google search = due diligence
Attorney Evan D. Brown notes that in a recent Munster vs. Groce court case in Indiana, the court determined the plaintiff hadn’t exercised due diligence finding the defendent because Google wasn’t searched: The court seemed to chastise this failure: …
Trackback by Lifehacker | June 23, 2005