|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 07:46 PM EDT |
The funny thing (ironic) is that if you search by name for
"Hogan" or "Hogan Velvin" or even "Hogan Velvin
R", nothing
shows up. If you search with Seagate in the business name
(with nothing else in there--except for dates), you see
"Seagate vs. Velvin R. Hogan" (the case you referenced), but
nothing that says "Velvin R. Hogan vs. Seagate".
Unless they consolidated both cases, but I would imagine
that they would consolidate them under the first to file
(which Hogan claims was him).
Of course, IANAL.
Have a great day:)
Patrick.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 10:42 PM EDT |
N/t [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 10:54 AM EDT |
Many have said "It will be tough for Samsung to show that a
20-year-old financial dispute between Hogan and his onetime
employer had a direct bearing on the jury award in this
case"
I do not understand ? The direct baring on the cases surly
is that he did forget to mention this and if he can get this
part of his oath wrong what other parts of his oath where
also wrong ?
The Judge asked a very clear question and only received a
partial response - this seems to be Mr Hogan's modus
operandi as later he tried to say the Judge had not asked
him the direct question "... you ever been involved in a
lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant or as a
witness?"
To me this last statement is the nail in the coffin as it
demonstrates nothing Mr Hogan says can be trusted. Samsung
lawyers only need to show this last outing to judge and
point out that if he can mistake what the judge said to him
how can any testimony be trusted ?
This must give the Judge an excellent way out - she cannot
be blamed for the unreliability of a Jury member.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|