We are a proud member of the following organizations:
Post Tribute Message
[Showing 5 of 5 entries
Date: 2014-01-11 15:35
Name: Annie L. (Simmons) Jenkins
So sorry to hear of your loss. My brother Jimmy thought the world of Mr. Pearson. You will be in my prayers.
Date: 2003-03-14 23:21
I understand that is imoratpnt to remember to make 3 copies of the files in case anything happens to the hard drive where the file is stored on the computer.Making copies onto usb sticks or computer disks is also a good idea.
Date: 2003-03-14 22:18
Keep on writing and chginugg away! http://bzccqlio.com [url=http://fukxnwvalrk.com]fukxnwvalrk[/url] [link=http://zocdwutilki.com]zocdwutilki[/link]
Date: 2003-03-14 11:35
You've really helped me unedastrnd the issues. Thanks.
Date: 2003-03-14 07:30
Nathan SchachtmanThe two cases subsequent to the Supreme Court's diesicon in Matrixx were both trial court diesicons. I suspect that plaintiffs' cited the Supreme Court's language, and suggested that it controlled the trial court's diesicon in each case.Was it illicit? Wrongheaded? Any lawyer of any analytical acumen would know that the language in the Matrixx case, about statistical significance, was dictum. In my opinion, citing language of the Supreme Court, in a brief to a lower court, without pointing out to the lower court that the quoted language was dictum is a sin, venal not mortal, but still a sin. Lawyers should make the distinction; and the risk the ire of judges when they quote language and don't acknowledge that the language is dictum. But judges should independently analyze the cases that they cite in their opinions.So The trial courts here, in the Cheek case (involving fenfluramine) and the Chantix cases, cited a Supreme Court cases that was a diesicon on the adequacy of pleadings, not the sufficiency or the reliability of specific evidence. Furthermore, it was a diesicon on materiality of the withheld information, and everyone on the Court agreed that information not sufficient to show causation was important enough to be material; and therefore causation need not even have been alleged, let alone proved. It would be impolitic for me to comment on the judges' acument here, other than to incorporate by reference my earlier criticisms of the dictum in Matrixx Initiatives. But what you should know is that the process of sneaking in extraneous comments into an opinion by the Supreme Court Justices, to be used as a building block for later opinions, is a time-honored tradition. Call it testing the waters for where the author of the opinion may want or hope to take the Court in future cases should the opportunity arise. It is the responsibility of the academic and practicing Bar to let the Court know that it is watching and to deconstruct the attempt to manipulate or distort the development of the law.NAS
Scales and Sons Funeral Home
PHONE: (615) 893-1313 - 24 hours a day
314 East State Street
Murfreesboro, TN 37130