Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines

ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

The theory behind it | 158 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

No. Unless....

Authored by: webster on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 01:04 PM EDT

.

the Plaintiff does some sandbagging and saves a major argument for his rebuttal.
[He has to rebut something the Defendant, Google argues. He shouldn't go into
new, or unmentioned material. That would be unfair to the Defendant.]

.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Thanks - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 01:06 PM EDT
Van Nest just confirmed you are right - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 01:57 PM EDT
"He shouldn't go into new, or unmentioned material" - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 02:04 PM EDT
- "He shouldn't go into new, or unmentioned material" - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 04:03 PM EDT
  - Bye bye Boies, have fun storming the castle - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 06:20 PM EDT

The theory behind it

Authored by: s65_sean on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 02:15 PM EDT

The theory behind it is this, if I understand it correctly:

1. The plaintiff goes first to state their case.

2. The defendant goes next to rebut any statements made by the plaintiff and to
introduce arguments of their own.

3. The plaintiff goes last, but only to rebut anything said by the defendant in
step 2 above. if the plaintiff introduces any new information of their own, then
the defendant would get a chance to state a rebuttal and defense against the new
information.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )