hercules6681 wrote:
不好意思~對美國的...(恕刪)
可以看一下字典的解釋。 簡而言之，當聯邦法和州法起衝突，聯邦法贏。 可怕的是法院用了Any這個字。 任何的範圍是有多大?
TD4 wrote:
我要先聲明，提到這...(恕刪)
If I remember correctly, in McDonald's coffee case, the jury has already rendered a verdict but the judge reduced the amount of damage awarded. McDonald has lost.
In contrast to McDonald, this UA matter has not been adjudicated yet but UA CEO's admission of responsibility and the doctor did nothing wrong could haunt them later in court. I am not saying it will hurt UA's case in court 100% but if this matter is ever litigated, you bet the doctor's attorneys will try get CEO's statements in as admissible evidence for the jury to hear :)
If you are interested, you can purchase a book on Federal Rule of Evidence as many states adopts a similar version of evidence code. You will appreciate the many ways to try to get a piece of evidence in. If you cannot get a piece of evidence in due to denial based on "character evidence"
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_404
However, how about get that piece of damaging evidence in under impeachment? :) The list goes on and on.
Given that UA might be able to find escape under the supreme court decision in regards to at least some of the potential tort claims, it's not surprising the doctor's attorney is looking into litigate against UA, airport, and the city to broaden the net.
Regardless, things just does not look good for UA. UA is in a lose/lose situation right now. Imagine this matter goes to court and the court throws out enough tort claims. How would the public react?
,控方不需要證明"不符合條件"只要指名不履約(不論對錯)"事實"...辯方才要根據不履約事實提出抗辯(根據合約xxx條約...我們有權解除ooo的約定),除非辯方之前就很明確告訴你是根據xxx條款執行,那才會針對該條款進行說明
