Law Practice,
Government,
Constitutional Law
May 29, 2013
New panel decision shows why facts are for juries
When a 2-judge majority rules that no person could reasonably conclude that the plaintiff has a case, they are also saying that a dissenting judge must be fundamentally defective in his reasoning.
Robert L. Bastian Jr.
Partner
Bastian & Dini
Penthouse Suite 9025 Wilshire Blvd
Beverly Hills , CA 90211
Phone: (310) 789-1955
Fax: (310) 822-1989
Email: robbastian@aol.com
Whittier Law School
Facts are for juries. This much is a shared foundation of democratic political legitimacy, a principle upon which our country and, in particular, our legal system is founded. From the moment someone, presumptively Benjamin Franklin, crossed out "sacred" and scribbled "self-evident" onto Thomas Jefferson's draft, we have been weaned on the milk of Enlightenment, our common bond, not our disparate beliefs, but shared experience, shared facts.
Likewise, reasonable inferences from fac...For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In