The Lexington Herald-Leader actually editorialized in favor of The Family Foundation's argument that it didn't get the opportunity to take discovery in the Instant Racing case:
... When the foundation sought to learn more about this type of wagering, the court turned it down, ultimately giving the other parties the green light. The Kentucky Court of Appeals agreed with the foundation.
Former Supreme Court Chief Justice Joseph Lambert, writing for the majority, noted that the issues involved "are complex," including how the wagers are pooled and the odds determined, and whether a video of an historical race is actually a horse race under Kentucky law. But the trouble is those questions can't be answered without information.
As Lambert wrote, "the role of discovery in the litigation process can hardly be overstated."Read more here.
No comments:
Post a Comment
You are welcome to post at this blog. You are asked, however, to refrain from the following:
1. Name-calling;
2. Questioning the motives or integrity of people you have never met just because you disagree with them;
3. Using obscenities or other expressions not appropriate or necessary to civilized discussion;
4. Taking disagreement personally;
5. Demeaning or insulting remarks.
The host will attempt to abide by the same rules and only asks that you not provide him with the temptation to do so in return by violating them.
Failure to comply with these rules can result (depending solely on the arbitrary and inscrutable will of the host) in the deletion of offending posts and suspension of posting privileges. Such measures are more likely if you post anonymously.