Judge's Decision in UAL v. ALPA
#61
This is an understandable reaction to a ruling. Remember, truth can boil down to credibility and reliability. If a committee chairman is perceived as lacking credibility, for whatever reason, then the testimony will be scrutinized. This has always been the case. You can go back to English common law from 500 years ago and find examples of this.
The "reel" question should be what is ALPA doing! My guess is they are busy representing themselves.
The "reel" question should be what is ALPA doing! My guess is they are busy representing themselves.
In the judge's defense the standards regarding an injunction are different than those for a finding of fault/damages (biased towards preventing irreparable harm). I can't speculate whether the ruling would be the same for the "end game".
Last edited by BIrwin; 04-08-2009 at 06:29 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post