CONTACT ME

SUBSCRIBE


  • Enter your email address:

June 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30        

« Second District, Division Eight holds (again) that Prop. 64 does NOT apply to pending cases | Main | "Blog's Demise May Chill Other Federal Lawyers' Online Comments" »

Thursday, November 17, 2005

Comments

Beth Ross

Kimberley
Further to your analysis of Judge Schwab's ruling in Estrada, please note that the Court distinquished Schwartz during oral argument for the reasons you articulate.
If his ruling is overturned on appeal we are certain that on remand he will certify the class, leaving in tact the injunction.

Kimberly A. Kralowec

Beth, thanks for the clarification.

The comments to this entry are closed.

2020 Supreme Court Calendar


Research


Disclaimer


  • Nothing in this blog constitutes legal advice or a solicitation for business. If you need legal advice, consult an attorney in your jurisdiction. To read this blog's complete disclaimer, click here.


  • The UCL Practitioner
    © 2003-2020
    by Kimberly A. Kralowec
    All rights reserved.



  • Header design by Webmotion
    Photos by Jack Gescheidt
    Powered by TypePad


  • StatCounter