Originally Posted by Cindysphinx
No, I won't be citing the "relevant law." On account of how I don't wish to be bothered.
Didn't mean to be a bother, but it seems like when a legal professional asserts that something is "a matter of law," he or she should have some sort of specific legal principle or precedent in mind to justify that assertion, even if it's just a post on a tennis forum.
By the way, I see that in this case it was actually an appellate panel overturning the judge's summary judgment order. The opinion is here: