A nice little bit of legal wrangling from the U.S. Third Circuit (appellate
court), via Reddit:
(full opinion http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/144183p.pdf)
>From J. Ambro's concurrence:
This case presents what academic literature terms a “voting paradox.” On
the one hand, two judges (Judge Greenberg and I) believe that the outcome
should be that Hanover’s suit not proceed, though we do so for different
reasons. However, one majority of this Court (Judges Fuentes and Greenberg)
believes that Hanover has antitrust standing (I do not because I do not discern
antitrust injury), while another majority (Judge Fuentes and I) believes that
Hanover should survive Village’s motion to dismiss (assuming it has antitrust
standing). The paradox is that, if I vote on the judgment of this case (affirm
or reverse) based on my individual views, a majority of the Court will have
ruled against the prevailing party on each relevant issue, meaning that our
Court’s reasoning would not support its judgment. However, if I follow, despite
my dissent, Judge Fuentes and Greenberg on the antitrust standing issue, my
individual vote would be inconsistent with my view of wh!
o should win were I alone ruling.
[From the reddit commentary: "J. Ambro ended up voting with J. Fuentes,
conceding the standing issue. J. Greenberg's concurrence criticized him for
this choice, though I'm ultimately persuaded by Ambro's reasoning. It's a
lovely, nerdy mess :)"]
