Re: [dvd-discuss] Matt Pavlovich WINS in Cal. Supreme Court

[Bryan Taylor <bryan_w_taylor(at)yahoo.com>]

--- "James S. Tyre" <jstyre@jstyre.com> wrote:
>
> Do keep in mind, though, that those issues were not litigated here, and the 
> court was bound to accept as true certain allegations made in the 
> Complaint.  That won't be the case when they get to the Bunner hearing.  It 
> is an open question whether there would be a predisposition to say the same 
> things when the issues are litigated in the Cal. Supreme Court.

That is a very important point about find jurisdiction based on the facts DVD
CCA alleges it can prove. I searched the case for some statement by them to
this effect, but was quite surprised to not see it. Did I miss it, or would
they normally just leave it unstated?

I forget, did they hear the Bunner oral arguments yet? I was surprised that the
Court here didn't take care to indicate that they have not decided that case
yet. You would think they would be very careful to state the context of their
analysis.

Final question: is there any Constitutional question here that DVD CCA might
want to take up to the US Supreme Court? The Court today based a chunk of it's
reasoning on CA caselaw and other parts of it on Federal caselaw. They didn't
separate state law reasoning from Federal Constitutional reasoning, but rather
kind of blurred it all together.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com