I lost track of this news from the New York Law Journal but today, on Thanksgiving, I’m finding it significant enough to post:<\/p>\n
New York City police unions protesting the city’s agreement to settle lawsuits on stop-and-frisk practices waited too long before trying to insert themselves into the high-profile litigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said Friday.<\/em><\/p>\n In a ruling denying the unions’ intervention bid, the circuit also granted the city’s motion for voluntary dismissal of its appeal of liability and remedial orders with prejudice.<\/em><\/p>\n Long before the five unions filed their intervention motions in what the circuit referred to as “controversial and public cases,” they knew, or should have known, of their alleged interests at stake, the court said.<\/em><\/p>\n There you have it. Even large collaterally municipal entities such as police unions must adhere to statutes of limitations.<\/p>\n The article doesn’t call this you’re-too-late-baby decision a statute of limitations issue, but that’s my non-lawyer interpretation.<\/p>\n If I had the time, I’d enjoy reading the unions’ appellate brief to the Second Circuit (New York’s federal appellate court). How do they argue that oh, gee, we didn’t really wait too long to file, or if we did, there’s a reason and here it is, or the court shouldn’t pay too much attention to the late date because it’s all so confusing and this is an unusual case. Or…<\/p>\n But today I’m too lazy to go into the federal court data base (the link is under my Sites of Interest, to the right \u2192) so I just suggested stuff, above.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I lost track of this news from the New York Law Journal but today, on Thanksgiving, I’m finding it significant enough to post: Circuit Rejects Police Union Role in ‘Stop and Frisk’ New York City police unions protesting the city’s … Continue reading