Resource asymmetry between parties lets well-funded defendants win through delay

Evidence

Aggravating these difficulties was the disparity in resources between the parties in the litigation. As Judge George Pratt observed early in the case, the plaintiffs “have limited resources with which to press their claims and [their] plight becomes more desperate and depressing as time goes on,” whereas the defendants “have ample resources for counsel and expert witnesses to defend them and probably gain significantly from every delay that they can produce.” — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2156

Categorization

• SEED: Article angle: delay as an unregulated litigation weapon, and how procedural neutrality masks resource imbalance.
• XREF: Links to access-to-justice and equality-before-the-law course themes, and to legal-ethics rules on frivolous delay. — connects to: Resource disparities between litigants favor wealthy defendants in civil cases — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1038; Delays imposed by opposing counsel can bankrupt a small-firm plaintiff’s lawyer — , Harr Jonathan - A Civil Action , 248; A six-month timing gap can sever defendants from contamination they plausibly caused — , Harr Jonathan - A Civil Action , 2099 (+5 more)

Broader Connections

• Resource disparity between parties shapes civil litigation outcomes #corroborates (1.00) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2156
• Stacked appeals financially exhaust opponents who lack deep resources #exemplifies (1.00) — Robert A. Caro, The Power Broker, 949
• Institutional cover-up delays justice until perpetrators are beyond legal reach #exemplifies (1.00) — Mark Fisher (edited by Darren Ambrose), K-Punk, 1755
• Large power asymmetries suppress visible conflict by lowering the weaker party’s aspirations #qualifies (0.90) — Walter Korpi, The Iceberg of Power below the Surface, 6
• Equalizing resources lets dominated parties defend themselves and end domination #complicates (0.90) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 341