CONTACT ME

SUBSCRIBE


  • Enter your email address:

September 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      

« New UCL preemption decision: Viva! v. Adidas | Main | Petition for review filed in Schwartz v. Visa »

Monday, November 28, 2005

Comments

Scott McMillan

I was afraid you were going to put that Gallery Corp decision up here. I don't think Judge Huffman appreciates my interpretation of the law.

Kimberly A. Kralowec

Sorry, Scott. Nothing personal. I made a decision back in November of last year (based on the wise advice of my firm's managing partner) to be comprehensive in my coverage, even if what I'm covering might not help the plaintiffs' side. I'm very glad I did. A treatise is useless if it cites only the cases on one side of an issue.

Scott McMillan

Yes, but of course! Sorry if my comment seemed reproachful; it was not intended to be.

Yesterday, the court ordered publication of the decision.

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