Investment Chat Board Lawsuits Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: dantecristo who wrote (798)	9/23/2000 9:27:52 AM
From: dantecristo	of 12465

Here's the US Court of Appeals ruling against Varian: "Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 11, 20002 Before: WALLACE, FERNANDEZ and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. This preliminary injunction appeal comes to us for review under the Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. ß 1292(a)(1). After the district court entered the preliminary injunction which is the subject of this appeal, the district court entered an order granting summary judgment on the only federal claim and remanded the remaining claims to state court. Accordingly, the preliminary injunction dissolved as a matter of law. See Matek v. Murat, 862 F.2d 720,734 (9th Cir. 1988), abrogated on other grounds by Koch v. Hankins, 928 F.2d 1471, 1477-78 (9th Cir. 1991). The case is remanded with instructions to the district court to vacate the preliminary injunction. Appellees' motion for oral argument is denied. REVERSED and REMANDED." 2. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). geocities.com

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next