Esquilin-Mendoza, et al v. Don King Productions, Inc.

Filing 920110218

Opinion

var gAgent = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase()
var gWindows = ( (gAgent.indexOf( "win" ) != -1 ) || ( gAgent.indexOf( "16bit" ) != -1 ) )
var gIE = ( gAgent.indexOf( "msie" ) != -1 )
var bInlineFloats = ( gWindows && gIE && ( parseInt( navigator.appVersion ) >= 4 ) )
var floatwnd = 0

var WPFootnote1 = ' Of the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.\
'

var WPFootnote2 = ' Some further confusion arises from the Supreme Court’s use\
of the term "colorable" where the term "not colorable" seems more\
appropriate. In the legal context, the word is most commonly used\
to mean having apparent validity, see Bryan A. Garner, A Dictionary\
of Modern Legal Usage 124 (1st ed. 1987) ("used in the law in the\
sense ‘having at least a prima facie aspect of justice or\
validity’"), which does not seem compatible with the Court’s\
explanation. It appears, however, that "colorable" also has a\
secondary meaning which is very nearly the contrary of the first. \
The Merriam-Webster Third New International Dictionary, for\
example, gives as the first and second meanings, "1. Seemingly\
valid and genuine, having an appearance of truth, right, or\
justice, plausible" and "2. FEIGNED, FICTITIOUS, COUNTERFEIT."\
Merriam-Webster Third New International Dictionary 449. The\
Supreme Court apparently had in mind the latter sense.\
'

function WPShow( WPid, WPtext )
{
if( bInlineFloats )
eval( "document.all." + WPid + ".style.visibility = 'visible'" );
else
{
if( floatwnd == 0 || floatwnd.closed )
floatwnd = window.open( "", "comment", "toolbars=0,width=600,height=200,resizable=1,scrollbars=1,dependent=1" );
floatwnd.document.open( "text/html", "replace" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( " p { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:1px; } \r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( WPtext );
floatwnd.document.write( 'Close');
floatwnd.document.write( "