|
Actually, the 2nd appeal reversed and remanded bcause of the conflict of interest by the judge as a result of the law student. It only clarified the basis of liablity for the computation of damages that can be sought at the 3rd trial and the foreclosure of claims by the station at the 2nd trial. However, as the 2nd trial is before a judge in conflict if there was a 3rd trial the 2nd tral would be cnsidered as not have happened while and stipulations by the parties during the 2nd trial could be upheld by the judge in the 3rd trial as they were voluntarily entered into by the parties.
The appeals court seems to be flagging there are damages against RCa in thier view but they can not comment as that is not their job but, as they went into the detail of the calculation they were sending a messege to both sides as to how they should view the exposures,. This type of opinion sends a message to RCA that the appeals court does not see how they have clean hands and sends a message to the station that RCA is not going to be libel for the overall losses of the investors. It forms a good basis for the sides to meet and negotiate a settlement.
Maybe a budding law student should Shepardize the case and see what happens on remand.
|