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        

« Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure proposed amendments to Rule 23 | Main | Ninth Circuit declines to enforce no-class-action abitration clause in employment contract: Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP »

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

Comments

Charles Carreon

Now that's some meaningful advocacy for consumers. And I side with the Supreme Court's decision. Whenever there is "affirmance on other grounds but not on those relied on by the trial court," the appellate court is in questionable territory.

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