I believe this now confirms that Bates is 2nd "relevance" opinion cited by Eagan. http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/11/19/colleen-kollar-kotelly-ate-the-serpents-fruit-of-judicial-oversight-in-lieu-of-law/ … Also proves Eagan is sloppy judge
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel If Bates BlueBooked it, his opinion is dated not long after Jun. 21, 2010 - fn. 78 Holder is WL cite rather than S.Ct. cite.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @docexblog
@docexblog Does that mean SC hasn't done volume yet, you rely on WL? So a pretty narrow window after June 21, then?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel Yes, WL last resort. S.Ct was avail soon, definitely NLT July. BB says use S.Ct. until official U.S. available2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @docexblog
@emptywheel Yes, perhaps even narrower. Cld also circa date K-K opinion - if not already known - by usages of S.Ct. over US.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Replying to @docexblog
@docexblog Unless something really crazy happened, hers is known: 7/14/2004.
3:13 PM - 19 Nov 2013
0 replies
0 retweets
0 likes
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.