I apologize to my few readers for my total lack of posting the last few weeks. I've still been checking for new developments in the Courts and Legislature, but honestly, due to an emergency at work, I haven't been as diligent as I could be.
The Bee has a good article on the labor meeting going on. I think there will be interesting developments.
As what I had expected to be the labor war of the decade (even if it's not exactly what most people think of when they think of unions), the NHL cancelled its season. At the 11th hour, the player's union split and one faction buckled to accept a salary cap. Even still, the two sides couldn't seal the breach. The NY Post's (ironically) Larry Brooks has been saying this was management's strategy all along: to force an impasse. The problem there is, except in Alberta, impasses don't work the way the do here--you can't have replacements. That would mean that Toronto and Montreal would not be in the league. That won't work--would it?
2/01/2005
Prop 64 Retroactivity
Every trial court order holding that Proposition 64 applied retroactively is now invalid under California's prinicples of stare decisis, because the 1st Dist. Court of Appeal has issued an opinion holding that it does not.
This is consistent with a string of California Supreme Court cases going back years and including ones as recent as November. Not a surprise to me (as you may have read), but expect shock-and-awe "updates" from the panic marketing firms tomorrow.
For more, as always, check out The UCL Practitioner, who has been following the Prop. 64 issue like no one else.
This is consistent with a string of California Supreme Court cases going back years and including ones as recent as November. Not a surprise to me (as you may have read), but expect shock-and-awe "updates" from the panic marketing firms tomorrow.
For more, as always, check out The UCL Practitioner, who has been following the Prop. 64 issue like no one else.
