| |||||||||||||
What we don't needWhat we don't needPosted Nov 23, 2004 19:05 UTC (Tue) by ajkessel (guest, #25721)In reply to: What we don't need by huffd Parent article: The Lawyers are coming
Under the scenario you present, future litigants could challenge the earlier litigation as "sham litigation." This kind of thing used to happen in the era of neighborhood racially-restrictive covenants: in order to establish the validity of a racially-restrictive covenant, one neighbor would claim that it intended to sell its house to someone of another race in order to provoke a lawsuit. But in fact that neighbor had no intent to sell the property and just wanted to preclude future claims. See, e.g., http://www.aaregistry.com/african_american_history/1984/S... (Hansberry v. Lee).
In any case, it's important not to overstate the effect of a "precedent" making decision on the GPL. Although courts are likely to look to other court decisions interpreting the same document, future litigants are not going to be bound by a judgment to which they were not a party.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||