Attorney Profile David Matthew Phillips #150541 License Status: Active Address: Mavredakis Phillips Cranert, 35 N Lake Ave Ste 500, Pasadena, CA 91101-4195 Phone: 626-793-4440 | Fax: 626-793-1556
Full Answer
Why is the appellate brief based on a set of misunderstandings of product liability law and relevant juri?
The appellate brief’s opening argument is that because all vaccines are legally and factually unavoidably unsafe, the state cannot require vaccines as a precondition to school. This claim is based on a set of misunderstandings of product liability law and relevant jurisprudence, as well as on incorrect factual assertions.
What is the problem with the appellate brief?
The first problem with the appellate brief is that it simply does not respond to the major issues raised in the demurer. The task of the lawyer on appeal is to convince the appellate court that he did, in fact, state a valid cause of action in the complaint he filed on behalf of his clients. The demurrer, which the trial court sustained, suggested grounds why he did not. The appellate brief, for the most part, did not counter those reasons.
What is SB277?
In 2015, California enacted into law a measure, SB277, that eliminated all non-medical vaccine exemptions to required school-entry vaccines. There were a number of factions in opposition to this law. One faction, “Revolt, Revoke, Restore”, hired an attorney, T. Matthew Phillips, who eventually filed an SB277 lawsuit to stop the implementation of law. (Previous coverage of litigation filed by Phillips can be found here .)
Who is the attorney for Buck v. California?
The lawsuit was brought by eight plaintiffs represented by attorney T. Matthew Philips. The group is openly and extremely anti-vaccine.
Is the appellate brief well written?
Although this is not the main issue with the appellate brief, I would add that it is not well written. Among other things, it has a very high degree of repetition. It makes no references to the trial court record, something it is required to do. The references to cases are often taken out of context and used for points that are not the actual points in the case. It also, occasionally, makes extreme and unwarranted statements. Here is one of many examples. On p. 27, the brief says:
The Case
- To remind readers, Buck v. Californiais one of the first lawsuits filed to block implementation of SB277, which eliminates vaccination personal belief exemptions for students. The lawsuit was brought by eight plaintiffs represented by attorney T. Matthew Philips. The group is openly and extremely anti-vaccine. Their earlier lawsuit involved bad arg...
California SB277 Lawsuit Appeal – Omissions
- The first problem with the appellate brief is that it simply does not respond to the major issues raised in the demurer. The task of the lawyer on appeal is to convince the appellate court that he did, in fact, state a valid cause of action in the complaint he filed on behalf of his clients. The demurrer, which the trial court sustained, suggested grounds why he did not. The appellate brief…
Unavoidably Unsafe
- The appellate brief’s opening argument is that because all vaccines are legally and factually unavoidably unsafe, the state cannot require vaccines as a precondition to school. This claim is based on a set of misunderstandings of product liability law and relevant jurisprudence, as well as on incorrect factual assertions. In terms of the law, a major confusion in the complaint is that it …
California SB277 Lawsuit Appeal – Equal Protection
- The brief also makes glaring legal errors in its discussion of equal protection. The brief states that “Plaintiffs identify eight (8) separate and distinct bases of disparate treatment; in all instances, the disparate treatment is based on “medical status,” a suspect class requiring heightened scrutiny.” Most of these categories were not in the initial brief and are new claims. Since the categories in…
Misunderstanding Or Misstating Scenario and Facts
- The appellate brief seems to radically misunderstand the context for SB277 and its purpose. It describes the measles outbreak – an outbreak that spread to seventeen states and two countries, and that included over 125 cases– as “a few dozen tourists reportedly contracted measles in Disneyland in Anaheim. This event lasted just a few weeks and fizzled-out all by itself.” (p. 8) Thi…
California SB277 Lawsuit Appeal – Badly Written
- Although this is not the main issue with the appellate brief, I would add that it is not well written. Among other things, it has a very high degree of repetition. It makes no references to the trial court record, something it is required to do. The references to cases are often taken out of context and used for points that are not the actual points in the case. It also, occasionally, makes extrem…
Popular Posts:
- 1. who is the chicago district attorney
- 2. who is the johnson county illinois states attorney
- 3. what type of question to ask an attorney being interview for the possition?
- 4. how to contact michigan attorney general
- 5. how can i fax a power of attorney to irs
- 6. how much for attorney to file 129f only
- 7. what kind of attorney does trusts for house
- 8. how to get a civil attorney if you're on ssdi
- 9. how long has huber been u.s. attorney
- 10. what factors must be present for a communication between an attorney and a client to be privileged