Court Opinion

ID: 9932626
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:41:00.170521+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:54:47.250171
License: Public Domain

But for two exceptions, I concur in the scholarly main opinion. I will explain the exceptions, but they do not impair the validity of the remainder of the main opinion or the validity of the judgment.
First, I respectfully disagree with the judicial notice and per-se-interstate-involvement holdings in Part VI. I agree, however, as a matter of fact supported by the evidentiary materials of record in this case, that the particular Form U-4 in this case evidenced a transaction which substantially affected interstate commerce.
Second, I respectfully disagree with the holding in Part X that Oakley did not substantially invoke the litigation process. In my opinion, a person's either suing or countersuing another person is a substantial invocation of the judicial process. I agree, however, that Lewis did not establish that he was substantially prejudiced by Oakley's countersuit.