In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Note that 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) are connected by "or", not > > "and". Do you have reason to believe this dismissal was not under > > 41(a)(1)(A)(i)? > > > > > Since no mutual stipulations under 41(a)ii are to be found, it's a good bet > the unilateral 41(a)1 is being used by the plaintiffs.
So? Why do you think it significant that no stipulation was filed? If the prerequisites of 41(a)(1)(A)(i) were met, why would they not use that section, and make the simpler, smaller, filing? -- --Tim Smith _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
