This is the most complete story ABA has posted on these cases, in the sense that it mentions the NYLS case has been appealed. The linked article in the National Law Journal also discloses that a few of the California cases have survived motions on the pleadings. Whatever ultimately happens, the law students who have at least found the moral fibre to test their claims in court will always be a rung up from those who simply bend the ear of every idle passerby wih their wailing.
Finally, I’ll go out on a limb and predict that Woody Allen will play Strauss in the movie version.
By B. McLeod on 2012 11 12, 8:27 pm CST
It is completely absurd that a legal blog would note the “with prejudice” as if its criminal court meaning is the same as its civil meaning, and THEN quote the prevailing party in a statement that says throwing out the case means the winner was right in all things.
Come on you guys. Lawyers read this blog. ‘With prejudice” in a civil case doesn’t bar appeal or have any real meaning other than that the claim has been litigated and can’t be retried by the same court. As for “We won so we were right” please google “affirming the consequent.”
By LIz on 2012 11 13, 12:06 am CST
Oh, and if I worked for the ABA I would not throw around the fact that schools who are accused of cheating in their reported statistics complied with the ABA standard. Particularly not for cases that the judges are throwing out because, to quote one opinion, “Only an idiot would believe the reported statistics.”
By Liz on 2012 11 13, 12:22 am CST
So now you’re confirming that?
By B. McLeod on 2012 11 13, 7:29 am CST
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
© 2013 ABA Journal and the American Bar Association | ABA Home
Questions, comments, or concerns? Contact us
Visit our desktop site