Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: parsifal

The “holding” was to dismiss the case for failing to state a claim, parsifal.

What is so hard to grasp about that? I even provided you a cite from the case itself, stating that the sole issue was whether the trial court erred when it dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint. And further, that the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim did not test the legal sufficiency of the claim, nor the facts supporting it.


504 posted on 05/17/2010 1:22:46 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 500 | View Replies ]


To: RegulatorCountry

Page 3 of the Ankeny decision. 2nd sentence of the first full paragraph says it TESTS THE LEGAL SUFFICIENCY OF THE CLAIM. Its the facts you don’t contest. The LEGAL merits of the Plaintiff’s, the “Not an NBC” part, has been tested, and it failed.

Again, its a ONE SENTENCE holding for the most part. pretty clear.

parsy


506 posted on 05/17/2010 1:29:49 AM PDT by parsifal (I will be sent to an area where people are demanding free speech and I will not like it there. Orly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 504 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson