|
|
|
|
|
|
by chippiewill
1221 days ago
|
|
|
> The Court of Appeals decided to take this case to trial because it is novel and will probably serve as precedent for future cases. They didn't decide to take it to trial for this reason. If they needed it for precedent they'd just wait for the next case instead. They decided the case needs to go to trial because there are questions around fiduciary responsibility that they can't answer without a trial. |
|
|
Both in the decision and the permission to appeal the specifically cited the public importance of the subject area as a factor.
Which is great for them but of no concern to us -- you could say that it's an "some accident of immediate overwhelming interest which appeals to the feelings and distorts the judgment" to quote Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.