[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Compliance detection tool

From: RJack
Subject: Re: Compliance detection tool
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 16:16:56 -0000
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20100228)

Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/16/2010 2:50 PM, RJack wrote:
The erroneous

It will be "erroneous" when another court says it is. Right now, it's
a valid decision of a court.

The Supreme Court has already said it's erroneous.

"In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560–561 (1992), we
held that, to satisfy Article III's standing requirements, a plaintiff
must show (1) it has suffered an "injury in fact" that is (a concrete
and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or
hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged
action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely
speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision."

"[U]nless we wish anarchy to prevail within the federal judicial system,
a precedent of this Court must be followed by the lower federal courts
no matter how misguided the judges of those courts may think it to be.";
HUTTO v. DAVIS, 454 U.S. 370 (1982).

strictly limited to the one past defendant in a nation of 310
million people

And how many decided cases are there that reflect your erroneous view
of open licenses?

My views are always correct and error free, therefore a case
reflecting my "erroneous view" is a logical impossibility.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]