E-mail List Archives
Re: No decision from the Appeals court
From: Jared Smith
Date: Sep 28, 2004 10:23AM
- Next message: Sandy Clark: "Re: No decision from the Appeals court"
- Previous message: Jim Thatcher: "No decision from the Appeals court was Re: [webwatch] Disabilities Act doesn't cover Web, court says"
- Next message in Thread: Sandy Clark: "Re: No decision from the Appeals court"
- Previous message in Thread: Jim Thatcher: "No decision from the Appeals court was Re: [webwatch] Disabilities Act doesn't cover Web, court says"
- View all messages in this Thread
> They didn't rule on the public accommodation
> issue because the appeal didn't raise that issue. They dismissed the appeal
> on procedural grounds and did not consider the question of "public
> accommodation."
....and how much are these lawyers making?
The only thing more disappointing than the fact that the lawyers messed
up is the way in which the media is misinterpreting it. I don't read
"Disabilities Act doesn't cover Web..."
(http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-5384087.html) anywhere in the ruling.
The fact that the case was dismissed on procedural grounds does not
mean that it did not have merit.
Jared Smith
WebAIM (Web Accessibility In Mind)
Center for Persons with Disabilities
Utah State University
- Next message: Sandy Clark: "Re: No decision from the Appeals court"
- Previous message: Jim Thatcher: "No decision from the Appeals court was Re: [webwatch] Disabilities Act doesn't cover Web, court says"
- Next message in Thread: Sandy Clark: "Re: No decision from the Appeals court"
- Previous message in Thread: Jim Thatcher: "No decision from the Appeals court was Re: [webwatch] Disabilities Act doesn't cover Web, court says"
- View all messages in this Thread