Суд раздражён
Feb. 7th, 2018 10:35 amУвидел на Заговоре Волоха ссылку на решение с забавным текстом. Американские судьи не гнушаются разнообразить текст своих решений, "чтоб всем ребятам было веселей." В данном случае судья явно был обозлён тем, что райсуд "позволил адвокатам ответчика запудрить себе мозги".
Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, ANDERSON, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
ED CARNES, Chief Judge:
Needless to say (or maybe not), a district court cannot amend, alter, or refuse
to apply an appellate court’s mandate simply because an attorney persuades the
court that the decision giving rise to the mandate is wrong, misguided, or unjust. A
district court can, of course, wax eloquent about how wrong the appellate court is,
but after the waxing wanes the mandate must be followed.
The mandate in our earlier decision in this case involving the Florida stores
did not leave room for confusion or genuine doubt. It was not vague or
ambiguous. Our instructions regarding those stores were clear: [...]
There is no imprecision in those instructions, no room for evasive
interpretation, in short, there is no legitimate basis for applying what we said only
to a subset of the 41 Florida stores. We don’t know what else we could have said
other than, perhaps, “and we really mean it.” Well, we really did mean it. And we
still do.
(Базар, кстати, был о том, как понимать термины "бакалея" и "торговое пространство".)
Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, ANDERSON, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
ED CARNES, Chief Judge:
Needless to say (or maybe not), a district court cannot amend, alter, or refuse
to apply an appellate court’s mandate simply because an attorney persuades the
court that the decision giving rise to the mandate is wrong, misguided, or unjust. A
district court can, of course, wax eloquent about how wrong the appellate court is,
but after the waxing wanes the mandate must be followed.
The mandate in our earlier decision in this case involving the Florida stores
did not leave room for confusion or genuine doubt. It was not vague or
ambiguous. Our instructions regarding those stores were clear: [...]
There is no imprecision in those instructions, no room for evasive
interpretation, in short, there is no legitimate basis for applying what we said only
to a subset of the 41 Florida stores. We don’t know what else we could have said
other than, perhaps, “and we really mean it.” Well, we really did mean it. And we
still do.
(Базар, кстати, был о том, как понимать термины "бакалея" и "торговое пространство".)