4 ms·

On the free speech issue, the majority is clearly wrong, and the dissent is clearly right. I expect either en banc or a higher court to fix this. Past that, i'

On the free speech issue, the majority is clearly wrong, and the dissent is clearly right. I expect either en banc or a higher court to fix this. Past that, i'm not sure why yelp continues the jurisdictional argument (that VA has no jurisdiction over them). They have a registered agent in VA, yet claim this does not give VA jurisdiction over them. While there is a split of authority over this across states (with most federal courts holding the states can do this), this is unlikely to be one of the close cases these splits represent. Yet they continue to press the jurisdictional argument, pissing off every court along the way, while they have 0% chance of winning a jurisdictional challenge at any level (even if the registered agent issue was resolved in their favor, the court would still have jurisdiction over them under other tests). I have serious trouble understanding this strategy. All it does is make you seem unreasonable, which, for better or worse, increases your chances of losing on the real argument.

falsedan 13y ago
Yelp's legal counsel would be incompetent not to attempt a defense which results in the case being thrown out. They must have reason to believe that they have a >0% chance of successfully arguing it. Additionally, the US justice system is not like a playground: your legal tactics on one case, no matter how distasteful, will have no bearing on the decision of another case. Judges don't think, "hmm, they did some tricky hot-shot lawyering on that other case, time to take 'em down a notch or two!".
- smoyer 13y ago
  "your legal tactics on one case, no matter how distasteful, will have no bearing on the decision of another case" The Prenda Law debacle seems to contradict this, but then again, their WHOLE law firm was based on distasteful tactics, lies, etc.
- DannyBee 13y ago
  "Yelp's legal counsel would be incompetent not to attempt a defense which results in the case being thrown out. They must have reason to believe that they have a >0% chance of successfully arguing it." False. On both counts. Parties press completely frivolous claism all the time. Pressing frivolous claims does not make you a good lawyer, or competent, nor is it malpractice to avoid making frivolous arguments. "Additionally, the US justice system is not like a playground: your legal tactics on one case, no matter how distasteful, will have no bearing on the decision of another case. Judges don't think, "hmm, they did some tricky hot-shot lawyering on that other case, time to take 'em down a notch or two!"." First, both of these are in the same case. Maybe you should read the appeals court decision? Second, please don't lecture me about the US justice system condescendingly. I'm not sure where you practiced law in the US, but my experience as a US lawyer for many years now tells me this is 100% completely and totally inaccurate, as much as one would like it to not be. Certainly in the federal court system, things tend to be better, but at a state and local level? Please. Judges are not completely objective robotic automatons. If you really think behavior has no impact on decisions, i urge you to rethink this stance.

falsedan 13y ago

Yelp's legal counsel would be incompetent not to attempt a defense which results in the case being thrown out. They must have reason to believe that they have a >0% chance of successfully arguing it. Additionally, the US justice system is not like a playground: your legal tactics on one case, no matter how distasteful, will have no bearing on the decision of another case. Judges don't think, "hmm, they did some tricky hot-shot lawyering on that other case, time to take 'em down a notch or two!".

smoyer 13y ago
"your legal tactics on one case, no matter how distasteful, will have no bearing on the decision of another case" The Prenda Law debacle seems to contradict this, but then again, their WHOLE law firm was based on distasteful tactics, lies, etc.
DannyBee 13y ago
"Yelp's legal counsel would be incompetent not to attempt a defense which results in the case being thrown out. They must have reason to believe that they have a >0% chance of successfully arguing it." False. On both counts. Parties press completely frivolous claism all the time. Pressing frivolous claims does not make you a good lawyer, or competent, nor is it malpractice to avoid making frivolous arguments. "Additionally, the US justice system is not like a playground: your legal tactics on one case, no matter how distasteful, will have no bearing on the decision of another case. Judges don't think, "hmm, they did some tricky hot-shot lawyering on that other case, time to take 'em down a notch or two!"." First, both of these are in the same case. Maybe you should read the appeals court decision? Second, please don't lecture me about the US justice system condescendingly. I'm not sure where you practiced law in the US, but my experience as a US lawyer for many years now tells me this is 100% completely and totally inaccurate, as much as one would like it to not be. Certainly in the federal court system, things tend to be better, but at a state and local level? Please. Judges are not completely objective robotic automatons. If you really think behavior has no impact on decisions, i urge you to rethink this stance.