What is the difference between the respective doctrines of de minimis and frivolous claims
<p>Some claims are dismissed as de minimis while others are said to be frivolous. Are these two notions completely synonymous? If not then what’s the difference between them?</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Some claims are dismissed as de minimis while others are said to be
frivolous. Are these two notions completely synonymous?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>No. they aren't even that similar in meaning.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If not then what’s the difference between them?</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Frivolous</strong> means not having a basis in the law or a sincere and reasonable effort to extend the law. Sometimes the term frivolous is also used in a broader sense to include not having a factual basis, even though it would be a valid lawsuit if the facts alleged were true. But a narrower definition calls something without a factual basis <strong>groundless</strong> and calls something without a legal basis <strong>frivolous</strong>.</p>
<p>For example, a lawsuit for breach of contract in circumstances where you are suing over a contract you wanted to enter into with someone even though you acknowledge that they didn't agree to that contract would be frivolous. You can only sue for breaches of contracts that are actually entered into and it is frivolous to bring a lawsuit when you don't argue that a contract was formed.</p>
<p>A lawsuit alleging that a contract was entered into with someone and breached when, in fact, the other party to the alleged contract never interacted with the person bringing the lawsuit would be groundless, and within a broader sense of the term, frivolous as well.</p>
<p><strong>De minimis</strong> means that the magnitude of the harm is so small that the courts won't entertain a lawsuit to address the wrong even though the harm would otherwise be something that someone could bring a lawsuit over.</p>
<p>For example, if you sued someone for negligence for slightly bumping into when you were walking down a crowded sidewalk, even though you suffered no physical injury, and you weren't even made to fall or drop something as a result, that might be a lawsuit that is dismissed because the harm was <em>de minimis</em>.</p>
<p>Whether a claim can be dismissed for alleging only <em>de minimis</em> harm varies by the nature of the cause of action. Some legal theories will award nominal damages (e.g. $1), if you prevail on the other elements of the claim but show only nothing more than <em>de minimis</em> harm.</p>
<p>For example, in Colorado, proof of damages are not necessary to prevail on a claim for breach of contract or negligence <em>per se</em>, and nominal damages will be awarded even if you fail to show damages.</p>
<p>Other legal theories make a showing of more than <em>de minimis</em> harm one of the elements that must be proved as part of the cause of action for there to be any legal liability at all.</p>
<p>For example, in Colorado, a showing of more than <em>de minimis</em> damages is necessary in a negligence claim.</p>
<p>This is a distinction which matters a lot in cases where an award of costs and/or attorney fees depends upon which party prevails on particular causes of action.</p>
<p>In the federal courts, there is an additional subject-matter jurisdictional threshold of &quot;standing&quot;, as a matter of constitutional law, which requires a showing that the person bringing a claim suffered &quot;actual injury&quot; which arguably involved more than a <em>de minimis</em> harm. But federal courts have recognized that at least for some kinds of lawsuits, standing is present even when the claim is only for nominal damages.</p>
<p>A lawsuit seeking a remedy for a <em>de minimis</em> harm would rarely be considered to be frivolous.</p>

legal-terms any-jurisdiction