Just on a break. Started with opening arguments. Sullivan was brilliant and I couldn’t help but think how all those years in a classroom make a big difference in being clear. Main points were that the legislative record doesn’t support non-safety reasons and even if there were other reasons, and even if not pretext, those reasons are implausible. In contrast, state argued Entergy didn’t abide by its end of the deal. A good story but less legally precise or persuasive.
Testimony has now begun. Stay tuned.
Recent Major Briefs
- June 5, 2012, State of Vermont Brief in the Second Circuit (Yankee)
- September 26, 2011, Vermont Post Trial Memo
- September 26, 2011, Entergy Post Trial Memo
- July 18, 2011, Memorandum and Order on Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction
- June 13, 2011, Amicus brief of Commonwealth of Mass.
- June 13, 2011, Vermont Proposed Sur-reply to Entergy Reply