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      

« Eleventh Circuit invalidates "no class action" arbitration clause: Dale v. Comcast Corp. | Main | Update on the Ford trial in Sacramento »

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Comments

Andrew Sussman

Words mean things. If "directly" in the Korea Supply opinion does not mean what other courts have held it to mean, why is it in the quoted sentence?

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