Supreme Court Rules against Costa

Story link from USA Today.

http://bit.ly/cKuPJ9
--

Charles

On 6/7/2010 4:16 PM, Charles wrote:
Story link from USA Today.

http://bit.ly/cKuPJ9
--

Charles

IMO, it's too bad that the Supreme Court is getting clogged with this
kind of crap.

Marsha

In article , MAS wrote:

IMO, it's too bad that the Supreme Court is getting clogged with this
kind of crap.

The Supremes pick the cases they will take.

--
Charles

On 6/7/2010 7:15 PM, Charles wrote:
In , wrote:

IMO, it's too bad that the Supreme Court is getting clogged with this
kind of crap.

The Supremes pick the cases they will take.


True, but why does this stuff even get that far?

On Jun 7, 6:21*pm, MAS wrote:
On 6/7/2010 7:15 PM, Charles wrote:

In , *wrote:

IMO, it's too bad that the Supreme Court is getting clogged with this
kind of crap.

The Supremes pick the cases they will take.

True, but why does this stuff even get that far?

(If this ends up being a double post, sorry--goofy user glitch!)

This wasn't a case about cruising. It was just a coincidence it
involved a cruise line. The Supreme Court was deciding a federal civil
procedure question and held on these facts that the cruise passenger's
tardy amended pleading correctly naming the Costa defendant "related
back" to the timely original pleading incorrectly naming the Costa
defendant. Thus, Costa's not off on a technicality, and now, the
cruise passeger's suit on the merits--a claim for personal injuries
while on a Costa cruise--will be developed in the trial court.

Diana Ball
Austin, TX