4 ms·

For the issue with the state attorneys, why is the "delay" pertinent? Is there some rule that if the states don't expect a merger to present an issue, but it th

For the issue with the state attorneys, why is the "delay" pertinent? Is there some rule that if the states don't expect a merger to present an issue, but it then does proceed to present an issue despite expectations, that because they failed to correctly predict the future they no longer can do anything? Or is this only because their powers are limited to merger assenting and not anything further with respect to monopolies? (Obviously irrespective of the other arguments.)

dragonwriter 5y ago
> For the issue with the state attorneys, why is the "delay" pertinent? Because laches [0], which the feds are explicitly exempted from. > Is there some rule that if the states don't expect a merger to present an issue, but it then does proceed to present an issue despite expectations, that because they failed to correctly predict the future they no longer can do anything? No, but there is a rule that if you had all the information needed to make a claim, but delayed unreasonably, you can’t make the claim. It bit Trump a lot in his post-election challenges to rules that were clear long before the election. Where a delay with no good cause forecloses less disruptive remedies than those sought (e.g., Trump’s delay foreclosing most remedies beside throwing out election results), that weighs in favor of laches barring the claim. [0] https://dictionary.law.com/default.aspx?selected=1097 https://dictionary.law.com/default.aspx?selected=1097
- Glyptodon 5y ago
  So they basically neglected to make any claims with recent or newer dates, or they were such a small part of their claims the court decided they were window dressing to an action they should have already taken? I kind of take it from your comment you see a sort of wilful legal incompetence at play (particularly given your link says courts rarely apply laches)?

dragonwriter 5y ago

> For the issue with the state attorneys, why is the "delay" pertinent? Because laches [0], which the feds are explicitly exempted from. > Is there some rule that if the states don't expect a merger to present an issue, but it then does proceed to present an issue despite expectations, that because they failed to correctly predict the future they no longer can do anything? No, but there is a rule that if you had all the information needed to make a claim, but delayed unreasonably, you can’t make the claim. It bit Trump a lot in his post-election challenges to rules that were clear long before the election. Where a delay with no good cause forecloses less disruptive remedies than those sought (e.g., Trump’s delay foreclosing most remedies beside throwing out election results), that weighs in favor of laches barring the claim. [0] https://dictionary.law.com/default.aspx?selected=1097 https://dictionary.law.com/default.aspx?selected=1097

Glyptodon 5y ago
So they basically neglected to make any claims with recent or newer dates, or they were such a small part of their claims the court decided they were window dressing to an action they should have already taken? I kind of take it from your comment you see a sort of wilful legal incompetence at play (particularly given your link says courts rarely apply laches)?