Editing Champerty and maintenance (section)

===United States===
This concept exists in American jurisprudence but is disdained by "fans of entrepreneurial lawyering in the academy and elsewhere".<ref name="Green">{{cite web |url=http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2011/jun/14/judge-rules-righthaven-lacks-standing-sue-threaten |title=Judge rules Righthaven lacks standing to sue, threatens sanctions over misrepresentations |first=Steve |last=Green |publisher=Vegas Inc |date=14 June 2011}}</ref> There has been recent common usage of the term in the media in [[Nevada]]<ref name="Green"/> and [[Ohio]].<ref>[http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2003/2003-ohio-2721.pdf Rancman v. Interim Settlement Funding Corp., 99 Ohio St.3d 121, 2003-Ohio-2721.]</ref> In ''[[NAACP v. Button]]'', laws that overburden free speech rights in the name of preventing champerty were found to be unconstitutional.<ref>NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415</ref> Courts in Florida have found that the causes of action for maintenance and champerty are no longer viable in Florida, but have been superseded by laws related to [[abuse of process]], [[malicious prosecution]], and wrongful initiation of litigation.<ref>See e.g., ''Hardick v. Homol'', 795 So.2d 1107 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).</ref> Florida courts have held that champerty and maintenance may continue to exist as affirmative defenses, but only as to the enforceability of the champertous contract itself.<ref>See e.g., ''Malibu Media LLC v. Zumbo'', 2014 WL 2742830 (M.D. Fla. 2014) (not reported in F.Supp.3d).</ref>