Arizona precedent follows the exact same lines as that FAQ answer: http://www.loweringthebar.net/2006/01/woman_womans_fe.html
I therefore expected the same reasoning to apply here. But the article doesn't say that the judge followed that line of reasoning. Which surprised me.
Arizona precedent follows the exact same lines as that FAQ answer: http://www.loweringthebar.net/2006/01/woman_womans_fe.html
I therefore expected the same reasoning to apply here. But the article doesn't say that the judge followed that line of reasoning. Which surprised me.