Any lawyer will tell you when you walk into the courtroom the best odds you can get are 50/50.
Any lawyer will tell you when you walk into the courtroom the best odds you can get are 50/50.
I don't think I have ever told a client that.Any lawyer will tell you when you walk into the courtroom the best odds you can get are 50/50.
Your clients must have never asked you what their odds of winning were.I don't think I have ever told a client that.
I can't claim never to have said that, but it's not the norm.Any lawyer will tell you when you walk into the courtroom the best odds you can get are 50/50.
I think you're in luck. The remedy for lack of compensation is compensation, not undoing the taking.I don't want to see the ban overturned due to lack of compensation.
That's a silly assumption to make, and a non sequitur.Your clients must have never asked you what their odds of winning were.
Prompting the immediate filing of an appeal to the DC Court of Appeals.
A Notice of Appeal requesting was filed Monday by attorneys Stephen D. Stemboulieh and Alan Alexander Beck with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia after the United States District Court issued an order denying a preliminary injunction in challenges to the Trump administration's "bump stock" ban. The appeal "would further request expedited treatment in this appeal due to the urgency of the Final Rule going into effect on March 26, 2019."
WTH?!?She further admits that critical terms such as "single function of the trigger" and "automatically" are "ambiguous,"
I'm sure that was just coincidence. :lol:Gee, it's almost is if they expected the lower court to ignore the law.