Tuesday, August 22, 2017 12:59:28 PM
This, which StockAlphaDave's opinion was written on 12/23/2016- which is basically 2017. What I'm getting at is StockAlphaDave, who had a lot of good comments, was in agreement that Wallach now needs to have related precedents. Bottom line, I'm interpreting it that even if we do get Wallach, we still have a good chance of getting through CAFC:
"Wallach can not do what he wants he needs to back it up with related precedent and new precedents show a two part test is now required - odd that I have yet to see debate arguing my logic on the 558."
Recent WDDD News
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 12/19/2023 09:30:21 PM
- Form 10-Q - Quarterly report [Sections 13 or 15(d)] • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 08/11/2023 06:34:14 PM
Avant Technologies Equipping AI-Managed Data Center with High Performance Computing Systems • AVAI • May 10, 2024 8:00 AM
VAYK Discloses Strategic Conversation on Potential Acquisition of $4 Million Home Service Business • VAYK • May 9, 2024 9:00 AM
Bantec's Howco Awarded $4.19 Million Dollar U.S. Department of Defense Contract • BANT • May 8, 2024 10:00 AM
Element79 Gold Corp Successfully Closes Maverick Springs Option Agreement • ELEM • May 8, 2024 9:05 AM
Kona Gold Beverages, Inc. Achieves April Revenues Exceeding $586,000 • KGKG • May 8, 2024 8:30 AM
Epazz plans to spin off Galaxy Batteries Inc. • EPAZ • May 8, 2024 7:05 AM