Re: Does this case have bearing on abortion?

was still a fetus in the womb (I'm assuming, of course, that the employer's misrepresentations related to matters material to the child's interests). On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Gregg Miller wrote: The NY Appellate division ruled a child not yet born can sue for misrepresentations made to her

Does this case have bearing on abortion?

The NY Appellate division ruled a child not yet born can sue for misrepresentations made to her mother by her mother's employer. I wonder if this is going to have an effect on the rights of the unborn. http://www.law.com/jsp/printerfriendly.jsp?c=LawArticlet=PrinterFriendlyArt

Re: Does this case have bearing on abortion?

] Subject: Re: Does this case have bearing on abortion? On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 at 2:21pm, Gregg Miller wrote: :The NY Appellate division ruled a child not yet born can sue for :misrepresentations made to her mother by her mother's employer. I wonder if :this is going to have an effect on the rights

Re: Dysfunctionality in government

I think I agree with you, but as far as my own signing is concerned, I would probably have been required to have a co-signer. I believe your comment that the recall process is "lunatic" is expecially trenchant today, in that I note that Darrel Issa, the person who bankrolled the signatrure

Re: CA9 takes case in banc

So, it's probably just me, but it seems as if the 9th Circuit produced a particularly facile analysis of the balancing of the interests in the en banc opinion. Could it be they are daring the Supremes to reverse them? -Original Message- From: Scarberry, Mark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: CA9 takes case in banc

is somehow greater than the danger one's vote won't count at all. -Original Message- From: Gregg Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 3:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: CA9 takes case in banc So, it's probably just me, but it seems as if the 9th

Re: CA9 takes case in banc

I am having a terrible time typing today. I apologize for the improper use of it's in my last post. -Original Message- From: Gregg Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 6:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: CA9 takes case in banc I don't mean to pick

Re: CA9 takes case in banc

The comment to the circuit rules indicates that the ban on citation applies to all en banc review. -Original Message- From: Scarberry, Mark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 12:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: CA9 takes case in banc No, I don't think so,

Re: Paper ballots?

So now I have a couple of questions: Would govt. tort immunity protect the manufacturer of the paper clippy type thing if someone was harmed by it opening his/her absentee ballot? (I realize this is probably more appropriate to a general tort law listserv) So, if someone was carrying his/her

Re: California Appeal Decision

I did just a little searching, and I believe the following is probably true: The Secretary of State would have the final decision as to whether to appeal. Although the CA Constitution does indicate the Governor is the executive authority, a decision preceding the current Constitution held that the

Help recent SC case

I seem to recall that the Supremes issued a decision regarding judges free speech during election campaigns. Can anyone give me the details or cite? Thanks Gregg P. Miller Adjunct Professor Academic Support Tutor Thomas Jefferson School of Law 2121 San DIego Avenue San DIego, CA 92110 (619)