Just means she'll need a fact finding hearing. The standard for a TRO is a party must convince the judge that they will suffer immediate irreparable injury unless the order is issued. If the judge is convinced that a temporary restraining order is necessary, she may issue the order immediately, without informing the other parties and wit…
Just means she'll need a fact finding hearing. The standard for a TRO is a party must convince the judge that they will suffer immediate irreparable injury unless the order is issued. If the judge is convinced that a temporary restraining order is necessary, she may issue the order immediately, without informing the other parties and without holding a hearing. Requires "clear and convincing evidence" of harm.
To seek a permanent injunction, a plaintiff must pass the four-step test: (1) that the plaintiff has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for the injury; (3) that the remedy in equity is warranted upon consideration of the balance ...
Daniel, you are a lawyer, a retired jurist in your own right, an institutionalist, and think in terms of he law and precedent.
But we are faced with an unprecedented scoff law and a supreme court that supports the scoff law..
All is temporary until decided by SCOTUS, and we have the history of this Supreme Court to forecast their decisions.
I doubt that there is a betting parlay in Vegas featuring SCOTUS, because only a fool would vote for the defendant. If SCOTUS agees with the lower court ruling ,which is conservative, they refuse to take the case, if it is a case that they wish to set as rock solid precedent like Presidental Immunity, they will take the case.
Are you saying that Tanya Chutkan lacked discretion. Here I thought that a judge was all about discretion. If they don't have discretion then we don't need judges just automatons, AI.
1. Discretion -- "clear and convincing" is not the same as "preponderence." Judges can't rule if the plaintiffs don't bring actual evidence. Can't grant a TRO on the pleadings. In antideluvian time, the lawyers had to verrify, under oath, the pleadings. Who are the actual witnesses?
2. In the actiual case on the merits she has to take testimopny and give both sides due process before she rules.
Just means she'll need a fact finding hearing. The standard for a TRO is a party must convince the judge that they will suffer immediate irreparable injury unless the order is issued. If the judge is convinced that a temporary restraining order is necessary, she may issue the order immediately, without informing the other parties and without holding a hearing. Requires "clear and convincing evidence" of harm.
To seek a permanent injunction, a plaintiff must pass the four-step test: (1) that the plaintiff has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for the injury; (3) that the remedy in equity is warranted upon consideration of the balance ...
Need to see what affidavits were attached.
Daniel, you are a lawyer, a retired jurist in your own right, an institutionalist, and think in terms of he law and precedent.
But we are faced with an unprecedented scoff law and a supreme court that supports the scoff law..
All is temporary until decided by SCOTUS, and we have the history of this Supreme Court to forecast their decisions.
I doubt that there is a betting parlay in Vegas featuring SCOTUS, because only a fool would vote for the defendant. If SCOTUS agees with the lower court ruling ,which is conservative, they refuse to take the case, if it is a case that they wish to set as rock solid precedent like Presidental Immunity, they will take the case.
Baloney. As usual the media dolesn't understand the procedure. Without evidence the judge lacked discretion.
Are you saying that Tanya Chutkan lacked discretion. Here I thought that a judge was all about discretion. If they don't have discretion then we don't need judges just automatons, AI.
It's not a done deal. The judge is open to the plaintiffs returning with facts that will lead to a ruling against Musk.
I am only a layman, but so far she has ruled in favor of the plaintiff's, to me that is a tell. She didn't have to, and should not
1. Discretion -- "clear and convincing" is not the same as "preponderence." Judges can't rule if the plaintiffs don't bring actual evidence. Can't grant a TRO on the pleadings. In antideluvian time, the lawyers had to verrify, under oath, the pleadings. Who are the actual witnesses?
2. In the actiual case on the merits she has to take testimopny and give both sides due process before she rules.