District Court rejects "converse Cruzan" claim

[Conkle, Daniel O.]

Judge Whittemore obviously is acting under incredible time pressure, but
it strikes me that his rejection of "likelihood" as to counts 8 and 10
count have used some additional analysis, especially with respect to his
"no state action" reasoning.
 
Dan Conkle 
************************************** 
Daniel O. Conkle 
Professor of Law 
Indiana University School of Law 
Bloomington, Indiana  47405 
(812) 855-4331 
fax (812) 855-0555 
e-mail conkle at indiana.edu 
************************************** 

	-----Original Message-----
	From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of
marty.lederman at comcast.net
	Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 8:28 AM
	To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
	Subject: District Court rejects "converse Cruzan" claim
	
	
	No likelihood of success on that claim (Count 8) or the similar
"right to life" claim (Count 10):
	 
	http://legalaffairs.org/howappealing/SchiavoTRODenied032504.pdf

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20050325/a90133a3/attachment.html