About this site

  • Comments
    When you submit a comment, it won't be published until approved. This is to cut down on comment spam. However, I will also edit or block comments that are profane or offensive.
  • No Legal Advice
    Although I may from time to time discuss legal issues on this blog, nothing that I post should be construed as legal advice, nor as creating an attorney-client relationship between you and me. In fact, there's a good chance I'm not licensed to practice law wherever you are. If you need legal advice, you should consult an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
  • Personal View
    This blog is neither affiliated with my employer nor hosted by it. It is maintained through TypePad, and I pay the hosting fees. Nothing that is posted here should be construed as anything other than the views of the particular author of the post.
  • Tung Yin's Recent Papers (SSRN)

April 2014

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      

Stats


  • Check Google Page Rank

« Hey, don't laugh, it could happen to anyone of us. . . . | Main | The NSA wiretapping decision »

August 18, 2006

Comments

widex

You claimed that Taylor's ruling was "pretty badly written." I'm not a lawyer nor am I a legal scholar, but I have read multiple legal opinions in the course of my studies. Having read the entire 44-page opinion, in what way was her wording badly written? I felt her use of case law and judicial opinions supported her ruling. She did not overstep judicial boundaries and conduct strawman arguments or engage in vague generalities. The ruling argued each aspect of Plaintiff and Defendant's positions in a manner that was well-reasoned and concrete.

The comments to this entry are closed.