tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7911788560018241640.post7077455113526368965..comments2023-10-21T11:37:50.732-04:00Comments on The Blackbook Legal Blog: Pearson-Iqbal: A discussion about discretionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7911788560018241640.post-54287128518189205352010-03-30T05:59:50.088-04:002010-03-30T05:59:50.088-04:00Thanks for your info. I really enjoy this post.
...Thanks for your info. I really enjoy this post.<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.bankruptcyattorneyincalifornia.com" rel="nofollow"> DUI Attorney </a>alexiaalexishttp://bankruptcyattorneyincalifornia.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7911788560018241640.post-26768622065952718912010-03-26T01:19:29.929-04:002010-03-26T01:19:29.929-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Paulinephiliphshttp://www.duiattorneyinsandiegoca.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7911788560018241640.post-49374492921096844742010-03-25T12:07:04.541-04:002010-03-25T12:07:04.541-04:00Well, "clearly overruled" is a bit of a ...Well, "clearly overruled" is a bit of a judgment call. In the paper I cite Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 238 (1997): “If a precedent of [the Supreme] Court has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to this Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.” Thus, technically speaking, courts are to follow both Crawford-El and Iqbal.Goutam Joishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09691585566720871473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7911788560018241640.post-47773890812695728872010-03-24T17:02:53.668-04:002010-03-24T17:02:53.668-04:00Do litigants really have to cite Crawford as persu...Do litigants really have to cite Crawford as persuasive if it is as clearly overruled as you say? I think it'd just be ignored and Iqbal would be cited as the authority, no?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com