Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: AmericanVictory
You either have not read the brief or you do not understand Rule 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(6) is different from Rule 12(b)(1) in that it does go to the merits, as the Supreme Court has pointed out, and says that on the merits a claim is not sufficiently made out, oh lurking liberi.

I know that well. But the brief is still wrong in claiming the defendants had to cross-appeal.

42 posted on 01/08/2010 10:00:01 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]


To: Lurking Libertarian

Why don’t you actually read the brief. That’s not what it says. It only says that the defendnnts did not present the issue because they failed to cross appeal. It then says, and cites authority to support that all appellate courts may examine standing on their own motion and indeed are obliged to do so. When you misrepresent what the brief says it’s fairly easy to find your own failure to read what it actually says wrong. Of course it is true that the appellate court may consider standing but you have inaccurately described the brief as saying what it does not in fact say. You have then assailed your own mischaracterization of what it says.


43 posted on 01/08/2010 10:05:32 AM PST by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson