jcb
always emerging from hibernation
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 4,640
1) Jes, there is no need to apologize. I hope I didn't come off too strong. It is true they didn't get to a "court room" in a sense as there was no hearing.
2) I'm amused you've heard of "Fry." Frye does deal with evidence but specifically the admissibility of expert testimony. Frye was a 1923 decision from the D.C. Circuit (a federal court of appeals in D.C. as you might guess). It may still be used in some states but for federal law, it has been replaced by a "Daubert" hearing, named after a more recent (1993) Supreme Court decision. The difference is generally that Frye said the scientific principle had to be generally accepted. Daubert adopted a different set of criteria overruling Frye but saying general acceptance is one factor in deciding whether the expert testimony passes a smell test (i.e. is based on valid scientific principles). Like Mark Twain supposedly set, most people use statistics like a drunk uses a light pole, more for support than illumination.
3) Just to clarify, I practice in Tennessee.
4) I could not (nor would I want to) practice in Florida state courts without special permission. This is somewhat complex. For example, I can go to California and practice in a federal administrative proceeding but I could not set foot in a California state court without the permission of the court. I can still read, however, but that is a small substitute for being there and knowing the judges.
5) I do not disagree the American judicial system is complex but Jes will appreciate that a good friend of mine who used to be an incredible attorney lived down under for several years and always complained about how hard their legal system was to comprehend. It's always what you are used to.
6) FCRC can rule on "public accommodation" claims (i.e. non-employment claims). I doubt it gets called upon to do so very often. That is shown by the decision referring to Disney's failure to make a "reasonable accommodation" (an employment term) instead of "reasonable modification" of a policy which is the correct term in a public accommodation claim (go figure on the terminology). They didn't just get the terminology wrong, either. In any event, FCRC's decisions are not binding. Most court's don't even admit them into evidence if the issue goes to a jury.
2) I'm amused you've heard of "Fry." Frye does deal with evidence but specifically the admissibility of expert testimony. Frye was a 1923 decision from the D.C. Circuit (a federal court of appeals in D.C. as you might guess). It may still be used in some states but for federal law, it has been replaced by a "Daubert" hearing, named after a more recent (1993) Supreme Court decision. The difference is generally that Frye said the scientific principle had to be generally accepted. Daubert adopted a different set of criteria overruling Frye but saying general acceptance is one factor in deciding whether the expert testimony passes a smell test (i.e. is based on valid scientific principles). Like Mark Twain supposedly set, most people use statistics like a drunk uses a light pole, more for support than illumination.
3) Just to clarify, I practice in Tennessee.
4) I could not (nor would I want to) practice in Florida state courts without special permission. This is somewhat complex. For example, I can go to California and practice in a federal administrative proceeding but I could not set foot in a California state court without the permission of the court. I can still read, however, but that is a small substitute for being there and knowing the judges.
5) I do not disagree the American judicial system is complex but Jes will appreciate that a good friend of mine who used to be an incredible attorney lived down under for several years and always complained about how hard their legal system was to comprehend. It's always what you are used to.
6) FCRC can rule on "public accommodation" claims (i.e. non-employment claims). I doubt it gets called upon to do so very often. That is shown by the decision referring to Disney's failure to make a "reasonable accommodation" (an employment term) instead of "reasonable modification" of a policy which is the correct term in a public accommodation claim (go figure on the terminology). They didn't just get the terminology wrong, either. In any event, FCRC's decisions are not binding. Most court's don't even admit them into evidence if the issue goes to a jury.
Would be even moreso now, since I haven't been in so long, and so much has changed - I've not even seen a Magic Band in person.....I know....shocking, right? 
