Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2678a ============================ Appeal 2678a ============================ Panelist: c. Decision: REMAND Panelist: ais523 Decision: REMAND Panelist: Pavitra Decision: REMAND Panelist: Murphy Decision: REMAND Panelist: coppro Decision: OVERRULE/FALSE ======================================================================== History: Appeal initiated: 19 Sep 2009 03:32:26 GMT Assigned to c. (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 c. 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: 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: I support, but recommend REMAND. ======================================================================== Appellant Pavitra's Arguments: 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: I opine OVERRULE with FALSE, given the prior judge's request. ======================================================================== Panelist c.'s Arguments: 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: comex wrote: > On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Ed Murphy 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: 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: [no opinion given] ========================================================================