Related Posts
More Posts
I had an interview w/ the Hiring Manager at Boston Consulting Group for a position and it went so well that the HM said on the spot I was going to be moving onto the next round. Its been weeks since that interview & I've had to follow up w/ the recruiter 3x asking for an update. I mentioned interviewing elsewhere but prioritizing BCG. He finally responded to that saying he was going to debrief with the HM and get back to me but nothing... what gives?
Does anyone happen to be in or know anyone who is in the RUV alliance Angel Investment syndicate? https://ruvalliance.com/
We’re looking for angels who are familiar with investing through RUVs (a special purpose vehicle on Angellist) and specifically think the RUV Alliance could bring a lot of value.
#startup #angelinvesting #investing #angels
Any gay republicans here?
Additional Posts in Law
Why are read only documents called “riders?”
New to Fishbowl?
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.





In my area of law there are a lot of gray areas, so sometimes you're citing the principle even if ultimately decided differently. We use "Cf." a lot.
Correct. Or as close to. Frustrating endeavor for sure.
If I’m reading your post correctly, you’re finding cases that have an articulation of the law that is favorable to you, but is otherwise distinguishable?
You can use a C.f. signal, but this should only be done if no cases that are factually analogous (and favorable) to your position exist. If you’re regularly advancing a position for which there is no affirmative case law support, I’d revisit your arguments.
Citing a case just to spend briefing space to distinguish it should be an absolute last resort. In addition, a favorable articulation of the legal standard isn’t all that meaningful if no judge has applied that favorable legal standard to a set of facts in a way that supports your argument.
By citing distinguishable cases, you’re necessarily relying solely on attorney argument—which is never really persuasive—in your analysis.