Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
WG, what's to comment on? You have a suit based on some sort of nuisance theory, probably (we can only assume). The theory would be that the defendants' use of their properties interferes with the plaintiff's right to quiet enjoyment of his land.
Beyond that, there are going to be a lot of common law and statutory considerations which only a member of the California Bar is going to be able to intelligently discuss. I'm not even familiar with California's class action statute, and no one here is (not that I know of, anyhow) so even intelligent discussion of the procedural posture is out of the question.
In Oklahoma and in most places, winning these sorts of suits is an uphill battle.
It looks like the groups are settling one by one, so other than the fact that a nuisance suit has been brought somewhere and settled without a judge ever weighing in on the issues, this will be of zero precedential value.
|
Dammit Kevin, I tilt off a thousand words and then by the time it gets posted, you've already covered everything. You suck.
WG, there's just not much there - which is why this felt like clickjacking to your blog from the jump (which is annoying, and really poor message board etiquette). If that wasn't the intent, then take the snark out, but the rest is true.
Threaded Mode
