.@AppellateDaily If NV doesn't appeal (which they won't) but Idaho did, could NV go ahead and Idaho not?
-
-
-
.
@SteveFriess Let's stay tuned for what the@NevadaAG says about her plans. -
The state didn't even defend its ban.
@AppellateDaily@NevadaAG -
@SteveFriess I mean on this procedural point. I would expect some kind of comment.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@AppellateDaily@rickhasen actually, per FRAP 41 the mandate is stayed anyway by the filing of ID's motion until CA9 says otherwise, right? -
@gcehk@AppellateDaily If it is already issued is it recalled? -
@rickhasen@AppellateDaily Not sure, just says "stayed" in the rule -
@gcehk@rickhasen This is, of course, a stay request after cert pet already denied. Not fresh snow. -
@AppellateDaily@rickhasen@gcehk FRAP 41(d)(1) stays mandate "unless the court orders otherwise." CA9 ordered otherwise so (d)(1) n/a. -
@smmarotta@AppellateDaily@rickhasen when did the court so order? The motion for stay was filed after the mandate issued, no action since -
@gcehk@AppellateDaily@rickhasen By ordering mandate issue forthwith. Can't stay once issued, but court can recall (or SCOTUS can). -
@smmarotta@AppellateDaily@rickhasen OK, thanks. So AMK should have "recalled" in his order, not "stayed"? - 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
@AppellateDaily@iRhysTay Kennedy is still a dick .Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.