4 ms·
On March 26th AFP responded, filing suit in Manhattan federal district court claiming Morel had “made demands that amount to an antagonistic assertion of rights
by isleyaardvark 16y ago
On March 26th AFP responded, filing suit in Manhattan federal district court claiming Morel had “made demands that amount to an antagonistic assertion of rights”.
I don't think this is well phrased. From what I can tell "antagonistic assertion of rights" is a legal phrase that appears in the counter suit, but is not the reason AFP is filing suit. "Antagonistic" is being used as a purely descriptive, and not a judgemental term (more like, say "declaratory" than "malicious").
That said, I can't say I'll be too torn up if the phrase "antagonistic assertion of rights" hangs around AFP's neck like an albatross.
- _delirium 16y agoGood catch--- it appears in a paragraph discussing why the court should consider the case at all, so is mostly a jurisdictional comment. Courts are by default reluctant to issue declaratory judgments, because the U.S. legal system requires an "actual case or controversy" to consider a case. So AFP is arguing that, by setting up an "antagonistic assertion of rights", Morel has initiated an actual controversy over the matter that the court should consider, i.e. it's not just AFP asking for a declaratory judgment on a purely hypothetical issue. Of course, Morel's countersuit dispenses any doubts on that point.