![](http://investorshub.advfn.com/images/default_ih_profile2_4848.jpg?cb=0)
Monday, August 29, 2016 2:58:13 PM
Here's how I read this in very simple terms.
This other lower court (Pratt) agreed with another lower court (Lamberth) citing the other lower court's ruling (Lamberth) which is now on appeal to a higher court (Perry vs Lew).. is that not correct?
So in other words the other lower court (Pratt) just used Lamberth's ruling as precedent but it is under appeal to a higher court. Further you say Pratt said he would have agreed were with Lamberth's conclusion if the roles were reversed, you then go on to say that it pointedly focused on the differences in the C-W case, which makes sense since they were apples to oranges but doesn't support your argument.
I don't really see how you figure that should factor into the higher court's ruling because as you say, Pratt WASN'T ruling on the selfsame case. He was just using it as a precedent because at this point in time it is. So the lower courts both made mistakes based on Lamberth's first mistake, which should further one's resolve that this needs to be corrected in the appellate court lest others use it improperly as Pratt et all have.
Glidelogic Corp. Announces Revolutionary AI-Generated Content Copyright Protection Solution • GDLG • Jul 26, 2024 12:30 PM
Southern Silver Files NI43-101 Technical Report for its Updated Preliminary Economic Assessment for the Cerro Las Minitas Project • SSV • Jul 25, 2024 8:00 AM
Greenlite Ventures Completes Agreement with No Limit Technology • GRNL • Jul 19, 2024 10:00 AM
VAYK Expects Revenue from First Airbnb Property Starting from August • VAYK • Jul 18, 2024 9:00 AM
North Bay Resources Acquires Mt. Vernon Gold Mine, Sierra County, California, with Assays up to 4.8 oz. Au per Ton • NBRI • Jul 18, 2024 9:00 AM
Nightfood Holdings Signs Letter of Intent for All-Stock Acquisition of CarryOutSupplies.com • NGTF • Jul 17, 2024 1:00 PM