Siteadmin, Check users, Administrators
12,071
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 19:
Line 19: − +
no edit summary
Hunsacker, furious at the refusal, filed suit against Mulligan. He made a claim that the narrative describes as "discrimination." As nearly as a close read of the text reveals, Hunsacker alleged that he met the same qualifications for a business loan, including the required security, as did any other businessman, and Mulligan had no grounds to refuse.
Hunsacker, furious at the refusal, filed suit against Mulligan. He made a claim that the narrative describes as "discrimination." As nearly as a close read of the text reveals, Hunsacker alleged that he met the same qualifications for a business loan, including the required security, as did any other businessman, and Mulligan had no grounds to refuse.
[[Judge Narragansett]], the trial judge in the case, made a [[jury]] charge that was perhaps a direct call for [[jury notification]]. He dwelt heavily on the poor prospects of Lee Hunsacker and his partners, and stressed certain elementary principles of freedom of association that he considered more important than any non-discrimination statute.
[[Judge Narragansett]], the trial judge in the case, made a [[jury]] charge that was perhaps a direct call for [[jury nullification]]. He dwelt heavily on the poor prospects of Lee Hunsacker and his partners, and stressed certain elementary principles of freedom of association that he considered more important than any non-discrimination statute.
The jury found for Midas, but Hunsacker appealed. The most likely outcome that one may infer is that the appellate court remanded the case for judgment, but not to Judge Narragansett's court, on the grounds that Narragansett's jury charge was improper. The case was retried before this second (never-named) judge, and that jury found for Hunsacker and his partners.
The jury found for Midas, but Hunsacker appealed. The most likely outcome that one may infer is that the appellate court remanded the case for judgment, but not to Judge Narragansett's court, on the grounds that Narragansett's jury charge was improper. The case was retried before this second (never-named) judge, and that jury found for Hunsacker and his partners.