Originally Posted by
Upgraded!
You seem to understand this stuff pretty well and also appear to have some familiarity with the underlying case; can you shed some light on the first court's reasons for dismissal/claims not to have jurisdiction?
There's a specific law that says that certain types of rulings (and the essence of the case is what those types are) aren't the jurisdiction of the lower courts, but rather that the appeals courts have original jurisdiction. Corbett's argument is that the types of ruling that the law was meant for were ones where there was an administrative evidenciary hearing, which serves the purpose of the lower court and hence giving original jurisdiction to an appeals court to review that hearing makes sense. But this ruling (if it even is a ruling, which is the issue before the court) hasn't had an such hearing, so Corbett argues that it belongs in the lower court.
However, this issue is now definitively settled, so Corbett will presumably file a new action in the appeals court and we'll get a decision on its merits from that court.