Format for e-mail
| Appeal in the matter of: |
CFJ 2678 |
| |
| Panelist: | comex |
| Decision: | REMAND |
| |
| Panelist: | ais523 |
| Decision: | REMAND |
| |
| Panelist: | Pavitra |
| Decision: | REMAND |
| |
| Panelist: | Murphy |
| Decision: | REMAND |
| |
| Panelist: | coppro |
| Decision: | OVERRULE/FALSE |
| |
| Currently Eligible: | G., Wooble, Yally |
History:
| Appeal initiated | 19 Sep 2009 03:32:26 GMT |
| Assigned to comex (panelist) | 23 Sep 2009 22:17:56 GMT |
| Assigned to ais523 (panelist) | 23 Sep 2009 22:17:56 GMT |
| Assigned to Pavitra (panelist) | 23 Sep 2009 22:17:56 GMT |
| Assigned to Murphy (panelist) | 23 Sep 2009 22:17:56 GMT |
| Assigned to coppro (panelist) | 23 Sep 2009 22:17:56 GMT |
| coppro moves to OVERRULE/FALSE | 23 Sep 2009 22:21:35 GMT |
| comex moves to REMAND | 23 Sep 2009 22:41:28 GMT |
| Pavitra moves to REMAND | 24 Sep 2009 03:15:35 GMT |
| ais523 moves to REMAND | 27 Sep 2009 20:58:17 GMT |
| Murphy moves to REMAND | 30 Sep 2009 22:17:56 GMT |
| Final decision (REMAND) | 30 Sep 2009 22:17:56 GMT |
Appellant woggle's Arguments: | | (18 Sep 2009 23:45:57 GMT) |
Since Pavitra ruled that the relevant Distrib-u-Matics were destroyed,
my arguments here obviously contradict the judgment. The arguments are
what I intended.
Therefore, I intend, with two support, to appeal this case.
I suggest the appeals panel assign a judgment of OVERRULE/FALSE.
Appellant Murphy's Arguments: | | (19 Sep 2009 01:16:12 GMT) |
I support, but recommend REMAND.
Appellant Pavitra's Arguments: | | (19 Sep 2009 03:32:26 GMT) |
I too recommend OVERRULE/FALSE, in part because the original judge says
so, and in part because if we don't use OVERRULE for cases like this,
where the correct answer is as trivial and obvious as it could
conceivably be, then why do we even have OVERRULE and AFFIRM as valid
judgements in the first place?
Panelist coppro's Arguments: | | (23 Sep 2009 22:21:35 GMT) |
I opine OVERRULE with FALSE, given the prior judge's request.
Panelist comex's Arguments: | | (23 Sep 2009 22:41:28 GMT) |
The fact that OVERRULE (which is often used just to correct a simple
slip like in this case) dings the judge is unfortunate, and the rules
should be changed, but it's a relatively harsh penalty so I opine
REMAND.
Panelist Pavitra's Arguments: | | (24 Sep 2009 03:15:35 GMT) |
comex wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Ed Murphy <emurphy42@socal.rr.com> wrote:
> > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2678a
> >
> > ============================ Appeal 2678a ============================
>
> The fact that OVERRULE (which is often used just to correct a simple
> slip like in this case) dings the judge is unfortunate, and the rules
> should be changed, but it's a relatively harsh penalty so I opine
> REMAND.
I'm persuaded by this. REMAND.
Panelist ais523's Arguments: | | (27 Sep 2009 20:58:17 GMT) |
I opine REMAND on every appeal case I can (for the obvious corrections
to avoid dinging the judge, and for the BobTHJ cases so that the judge
can take eir comments into account if e wishes; I think re-judging the
same judgement in the BobTHJ cases would be fine, but recent arguments
should probably be addressed).
Panelist Murphy's Arguments: | | (30 Sep 2009 22:17:56 GMT) |
[no opinion given]
