LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > The Big Board

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 158
0 members and 158 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 9,654, 05-18-2025 at 04:16 AM.
 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 03-13-2009, 02:34 PM   #11
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,149
Re: Maybe ever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) View Post
Try this:

08-1839 USA v. Farinella, Charles criminal 03/12/2009 Opinion POSNER

If not, go to homepage and opinions, then find this case in list of this week's opinions.

Anyway, I guess it's a bit easier to give the prosecutor a "talking to" for inflaming the passions of the jury when that's not the sole basis for reversal.
I know criminal law has its own standards, but this decision seems wacky.

He found there was no showing consumers were misled? Seriously? they got the crap for cheap because it was soon not sellable by the manufacturer. then they post date it? What is the purpose of the date?
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts
Hank Chinaski is offline   Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:01 AM.