Thanks. This is very interesting. While working on page proofs for the Laycock/Hasen remedies casebook I found a nonsubstantive change that was made in Abbott v. Perez---the change is on Westlaw but not yet on the posted opinion on the Court's website, and no notation yet.https://twitter.com/FixTheCourt/status/1033837211849056256 …
-
-
Replying to @rickhasen
Is it possibly just an error in Westlaw? That’s weird.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
Replying to @danepps
westlaw looks right---reference to FRCP 65(b) rather than 65(d)
5:03 PM - 26 Aug 2018
0 replies
0 retweets
1 like
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.